State v. Luedtke’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Arizona v. Youngblood · 208 Wis. 2d 166 - In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook · State v. Maloney · 119 Wis. 2d 461 - State v. Disch
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) with one count of injury by use of a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in the blood causing great bodily harm, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.25 (l)(am), 6 and one count of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“satisfied that prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle while having a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in one's blood [without proof of scienter] bears a reasonable and rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statute, and that the statute is not fundamentally unfair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]n addressing the problem of drugged driving, the legislature could have reasonably and rationally concluded that 'proscribed substances range widely in purity and potency and thus may be unpredictable in their duration and effect.'”
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.