Willis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986), Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Schlossberg (1986)
1 district · 66 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 Schmerber v. State of California · South Dakota v. Neville · Reavis v. Antinore · Little v. State · Sites v. State
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he General Assembly's goal in enacting the drunk driving laws... is `to meet the considerable challenge created by this problem by enacting a series of measures to rid our highways of the drunk driver menace. These measures ... are primarily designed to enhance the ability of prosecutors to deal effectively with the drunk driver problem.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Willis nonetheless contends that a blood alcohol test administered approximately four hours after the accident is unreliable and for that reason is prejudicial. As the Supreme Court and this Court have observed, it is gener ally agreed that a person’s blood alcohol content decreases with the passage of time. ... Because any delay in the administration of a chemical test ordinarily inures to the benefit of the accused, an accused suffers no prejudice.” (Citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under a more refined and searching inquiry the issue narrows as to what point a police officer is considered to have ‘apprehended’ the accused at an automobile accident scene. Of course, common sense dictates that upon arriving at an accident scene the officer’s paramount responsibility is to render any necessary emergency medical treatment until trained personnel arrive. Until such a time it would be eminently unreasonable for the officer to engage in a comprehensive accident investigation. In short, the police officer’s investigatory responsibilities are subordinated to the more pressing. responsibility of rendering emergency medical treatment and to take other steps to secure the safety of both the victims and the public, such as directing traffic at the accident scene. Once the appropriate personnel arrive, the officer is in most cases relieved of his emergency medical treatment responsibility and is thus free to engage in an investigation if it does not interfere with the treatment of the injured or jeopardize the safety or welfare of those involved. Hence, police must usually wait until the emergency subsides and until the necessary medical treatment has been rendered before pursuing their criminal investí gation. In our view, this objective-based analysis is fully consistent with the legislative intent to preserve the two-hour time limit as an effective requirement and avoids forcing police to choose between ensuring the safety of the accident victims and the prosecut”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.