Krauss v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2015
2 district · 20 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 South Dakota v. Neville · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Dorsey v. State · McKnight v. State · Frazier 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“From the provisions of the statute, it is obvious that the Legislature recognized that the mere fact of refusal to take the Breathalyzer test was collateral to the issue of whether a driver was intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. In other words, the refusal was not material or relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. But, the Legislature also appreciated that in certain circumstances the fact of refusal to submit to the test may be material and relevant to collateral matters, that is, issues other than guilt or innocence, as, for example, when a defendant claims the enforcement authorities did not properly afford an opportunity to take the test. Thus, it made the refusal admissible, but subjected the admission to the restriction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Test not compulsory.— (1) Except as provided in § 16-205.1(c) of the Transportation Article, a person may not be compelled to submit to a test or tests provided for in this subtitle. Evidence of a test or analysis is not admissible in a prosecution for violation of § 21-902 of the Transportation Article if obtained contrary to its provisions. (2) No inference or presumption concerning either guilt or innocence mises because of refusal to submit. The fact of refusal to submit is admissible in evidence at the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““No inference or presumption concerning either guilt or innocence arises because of refusal to submit. The fact of refusal to submit is admissible in evidence at the trial.””
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.