State v. Loscomb’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably People v. Lowe (1983), Gargliano v. State (1994)
2 district · 85 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Gartelman · State v. Barnes · Dillon v. State · Applestein v. Mayor of Baltimore · Department of State Planning v. Mayor of Hagerstown
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[i]t is a general rule of statutory construction that statutes that deal with the same subject matter, share a common purpose, and form part of the same general system are in pari materia and must be construed harmoniously in order to give full effect to each enactment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A person may not be compelled to submit to a chemical analysis provided for in this subtitle. Evidence of chemical analysis is not admissible if obtained contrary to its provisions."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Willis v. State · State v. Weisbrod“(a) Consent — Whoever operates a motor vehicle in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States consents, thereby, to a chemical test or tests of such person’s blood, breath, or urine, if arrested for any offense arising from such person’s driving while under the influence of a drug or alcohol in such jurisdiction. The test or tests shall be administered upon the request of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the laws of a State, territory, possession, or district. (b) Effect of Refusal — whoever, having consented to a test or tests by reason of subsection (a), refuses to submit to such a test or tests, after having first been advised of the consequences of such a refusal, shall be denied the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States during the period of a year commencing on the date of arrest upon which such test or tests was refused, and such refusal may be admitted into evidence in any case arising from such person’s driving while under the influence of a drug or alcohol in such jurisdiction. Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States after having been denied such privilege under this subsection sh”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.