Sites v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 97 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, requires that a person under detention for drunk driving must, on request, be permitted a reasonable opportunity to communicate with counsel before submitting to a chemical sobriety test, as long as such attempted communication will not substantially interfere with the timely and efficacious administration of the testing process.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McAvoy v. State · 70 Md. App. 661 - McAvoy v. State

2. ““By affording a suspect the power to refuse chemical testing, Maryland’s implied consent statute deliberately gives the driver a choice between two different potential sanctions, each affecting vitally important interests. Indeed, revocation of a driver’s license may burden the ordinary driver as much or more than the traditional criminal sanctions of fine or imprisonment. The continued possession of a driver’s license, as the Supreme Court has said, may become essential to earning a livelihood; as such, it is an entitlement which cannot be taken without due process mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971). Considering all the circumstances, we think to un- reasonably deny a requested right of access to counsel to a drunk driving suspect offends a sense of justice which impairs the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 210 N.J. Super. 100 - State v. DeLorenzo · State v. Garcia

3. “Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway or on any private property that is used by the public in general in this state is deemed to have consented, with certain limitations, to take a Chemical Test to determine the alcohol content of his blood. Pursuant to law, I am hereby advising you that you have been stopped or detained on reasonable grounds on suspicion that you have been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated or while under the influence of alcohol. I am further advising you that Maryland Law requires the type of test to be administered shall be the chemical test of breath except that the chemical test of blood shall be the type of test administered if: (1) The defendant is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing to take a chemical test for alcohol; (2) Injuries to the defendant require removal of the defendant to a medical facility or (3) The equipment for administering the chemical test of breath is not available. The results of such test may be admissible and may be considered with other competent evidence in determining your guilt or innocence in any prosecution relating to your driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, while either intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. That you have the right to refuse to submit to the test and on your refusal, no test shall be administered. That your refusal to submit to a chemical test shall result in administrative penalties being imposed that may include a suspension of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McAvoy v. State · Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Administration