State v. Dorko’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “driv[ing] a vehicle on a highway [*] carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 426 N.J. Super. 510 - State v. Palma · 313 N.J. Super. 435 - State v. Wallace

2. “Now, you may infer such a risk if the defendant's conduct in fleeing or in attempting to elude the officer involved a violation of the motor vehicle laws of this state. It is alleged in this case that the defendant's conduct involved a violation of the following motor vehicle laws: failure to stop at stop signs; speeding; running a red light; making a right turn on red; driving while suspended; reckless driving; and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. However, you are never required or compelled to draw this inference. As I've already explained, it is your exclusive province to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence support any inference, and you are always free to accept or reject any inference if you wish. As I started to explain to you before, it is, you do not have to decide the motor vehicle—the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the motor vehicle summonses. Those summonses... will be in the jury room with you [and] will be handled by an appropriate court at a later time. The judge, however, declined to charge the elements of the governing motor vehicle offenses. We determine that the failure of the court to charge the elements of the applicable motor vehicle statutes was additional reversible error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 346 N.J. Super. 126 - State v. Dixon

3. “established in N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b. In a related vein, defendant's last argument based on Dorko is that there was no proof of any person in the vicinity of the chase endangered by defendant's conduct. As observed in Dorko : If the statutory inference cannot be made, then the State would be required to prove affirmatively that there was at least one person put at risk within the zone of danger created by defendant's conduct, because the statute clearly requires that defendant be shown to have”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 313 N.J. Super. 435 - State v. Wallace