3 Neb. Ct. App. 539 - State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We found no appellate level cases where the Halper holding was discussed with reference to a claim that driver's license revocation constituted a penalty under the Double Jeopardy Clause. . . . 5 The purpose of enacting the license revocation procedure under [the Nebraska statute] was to CT Page 10788 protect the public by getting people with drinking propensities off the road quickly and to deter driving while intoxicated. This civil license revocation is therefore remedial and not a punishment, even though the loss of a driver's license in our society carries a considerable `sting.' We conclude that a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause on the basis that the driver has already been subject to possible revocation of his or her driver's license under [the statute] for the same incident”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10784 - State v. Fox, No. Mv 94315260 (Sep. 13, 1995)