Hoyle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 2020 Ark. App. 223 - Jesse Benton v. State of Arkansas (2020), Lacy v. State (2010)
2 federal appellate · 28 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1171 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Schmerber v. State of California · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Foote · Tarentino 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At trial, James Gann testified that he believed Hoyle almost ran another vehicle off the road, that Hoyle was extremely talkative at one point and then totally silent immediately prior to the accident, that Hoyle never braked immediately before striking the Dean motor home, and that Hoyle did not attempt to assist any of the victims at the scene of the accident. Trooper Adams testified that his investigation revealed that Hoyle’s truck was originally traveling southbound, while the Dean vehicle was headed northbound, when Hoyle’s vehicle crossed the center line and hit the Dean vehicle at a forty to forty-five degree angle. According to Corporal Adams, the impact of Hoyle’s vehicle pushed the Dean vehicle backwards before Hoyle’s vehicle went through the motor home. Adams also stated that while investigating the crash, he noticed Hoyle sitting by himself on a hill near the accident scene. This evidence coupled with the toxicology report that established that Hoyle had methamphetamine in his system at the time of the accident and Dr. Pappas’s expert opinion that .221 micrograms per milliliter of methamphetamine without a doubt had a negative effect on the driving in this case clearly demonstrates that Hoyle acted recklessly in driving while under the influence of methamphetamine. We simply do not agree that the jury had to resort to speculation or conjecture in order to conclude that the methamphetamine in his system so altered his motor skills that it was the cause of the wre”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person acts recklessly with respect to attendant circumstances or a result of his conduct when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“whether the evidence ... demonstrated that Hoyle consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk in driving while under the influence of methamphetamine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rollins v. State
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.