State v. Hanson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Our case law recognizes the possibility that a blood sample may become contaminated before it reaches the laboratory for chemical analysis. See Wanna v. Miller, 136 N.W.2d 563 (N.D.1965); Erickson v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 123 N.W.2d 292 (N.D.1963). In Wanna v. Miller, supra, the plaintiff sued the owner of a tavern under the Dram Shop Act for serving liquor to an intoxicated customer who later was involved in an automobile collision with the plaintiff. The State Toxicologist testified at trial concerning the results of a chemical analysis of a blood sample taken from the customer. In response to the defendant’s contention that there was no foundation for the State Toxicologist's testimony and that the blood sample ‘was not administered as directed by law pursuant to Chapter 39-20,' we said: 'The blood specimen was extracted from [the customer’s] vein near the elbow by ... an x-ray technician and assistant laboratory technician at the Good Samaritan Hospital at Rugby. Although he did not remember specifically taking the specimen of blood, he said that he had checked the hospital records and found that he had done so. He explained the usual procedure by which blood for this purpose is extracted, marked, and mailed to the State Toxicologist. The procedure appeared proper, and our attention has not been drawn to any irregularity. The extraction of blood having been voluntary and proper safeguards having been taken in the extraction, marking handling mailing”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reil · State v. Nygaard

2. ““39-08-01. Persons under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any other drugs or substances not to operate vehicle — Penalty. “1. A person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle upon a highway or upon public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use in this state if any of the following apply: a. That person has a blood alcohol concentration of at least ten one-hundredths of one percent by weight at the time of the performance of a chemical test within two horn's after the driving. b. That person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor. c. That person is under the influence of any drug or substance or combination of drugs or substances to a degree which renders that person incapable of safely driving. d. That person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any other drugs or substances to a degree which renders that person incapable of safely driving. The fact that any person charged with violating this section is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol or other drugs or substances is not a defense against any charge for violating this section, unless a drug which predominantly caused impairment was used only as directed or cautioned by a practitioner who legally prescribed or dispensed the drug to that person.” [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nygaard

3. “"In North Dakota, the legislature in § 39-20-07 has explicitly prescribed that `... evidence of the amount of alcohol... in the person's blood at the time of the act alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of the blood ... is admissible.' The emphasis in subparagraph 5 is manifest: `The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown ...' that it was properly obtained and fairly administered. Rule 26, N.D.R.Crim.P., mandates that `all evidence shall be admitted which is admissible under the statutes of this State, ...' Thus, it was for the court to make the preliminary determination of whether it was properly obtained and fairly administered for statutory admissibility. It was for the jury to assess its relevancy and weight."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reil