State v. Bunnell’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2015
2 federal appellate · 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.
Relationships
Relies on Dunker v. Brown County Board of Education · State v. Brammer · 364 So. 2d 1 - Smith v. State · State v. Spry · Trussell v. Fish
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Substantial compliance” with a statute means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. It means that a court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted. Substantial compliance with a statute is not shown unless it is made to appear that the purpose of the statute is shown to have been served. What constitutes substantial compliance with a statute is a matter depending on the facts of each particular case.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person who operates any vehicle in this state is considered to have given his consent to a chemical analysis of his blood, breath or •other bodily substance to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood, as provided in § 32-23-7, and to determine the presence of marijuana or any controlled drug or substance, provided that the test is administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having lawfully arrested the person for a violation of § 32-23-1. The person shall be requested by the officer to submit to the analysis and shall be advised by the officer that: (1) If he refuses to submit to the chemical analysis, none may be required, unless he has been arrested for a third violation of § 32-23-1, constituting a felony offense under § 32-23-4; (2) If he refuses to submit to the chemical analysis, his driver’s license shall be revoked for one year, unless pursuant to § 32-23-11.1 he pleads guilty to a violation of § 32-23-1 prior to a revocation order being issued; and (3) He has the right to have a chemical analysis performed by a technician of his own choosing at his own expense, in addition to the test requested by the officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parker“[Njoncompliance with the implied consent statutes, although not making the test sample and test results inadmissible, results in a forfeiture of the statutory presumptions of SDCL 32-23-7. Therefore, the physiological effects of the blood alcohol content upon the defendant must be proven by the testimony of a properly qualified expert, not by statutory presumptions, (footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. O'Connor
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.