State v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably State v. Lussier (2000), Dodd v. Hood River County (1998)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 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.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The legislature has established an administrative procedure [for civil license suspension] to be used when a driver refuses a breath test when suspected of driving while intoxicated____ The criminal trial [to determine whether the driver is guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicants] is by constitution and statute more formal and hence more cumbersome. If collateral estoppel could be used against the state in the criminal case, the state ..., to protect its position at the subsequent trial, would have to litigate the administrative hearings more extensively____ Thus, instead of the short, simple proceeding intended by the legislature, the license suspension hearings could become as long and fully litigated as a criminal case. The intent of the legislature presumably was to avoid this.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walker · State v. Stearns“The mere fact that a party fails to appear at a proceeding does not necessarily mean that collateral estoppel may not later be used against that party. However, when an agency as a matter of policy does not actively participate in certain species of proceedings, there is less reason to hold that agency or those that may be in privity with it are bound by the resolution of issues at those proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walker“The constitutional basis for collateral estoppel is founded on the principle of double jeopardy. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 445 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1195 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). In the present case there is no constitutional basis for a double jeopardy challenge because no criminal sanctions could be imposed as a consequence of the first proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Warfield
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.