377 N.J. Super. 321 - State v. Bealor’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2007
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Johnson · State v. Locurto · State v. Smith · State v. DiCarlo
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.
“The term "under the influence" used in N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) means a substantial deterioration or diminution of the mental faculties or physical capabilities of a person whether it be due to intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drugs. . . . [A] condition which so affects the judgment or control of a motor vehicle operator as to make it improper for him to drive on the highway. . . . [or] if the drug produced a narcotic effect "so altering his or her normal physical coordination and mental faculties as to render such a person a danger to himself as well as to other persons on the highway." [ 377 N.J.Super. 321, 327-28 , 872 A.2d 1081 (App.Div.2005), rev'd on other grounds, 187 N.J. 574 , 902 A.2d 226 (2006); see also State v. Tamburro, 68 N.J. 414, 421 , 346 A.2d 401 (1975) (citing State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 165 , 199 A.2d 809 (1964)) (quoting State v. Di Carlo, 67 N.J. 321, 328 , 338 A.2d 809 (1975)).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the State had produced expert testimony—or even lay testimony from the trooper based upon his training, knowledge and experience—respecting the effects of marijuana intoxication on defendant’s behavior, physical appearance and condition, it would have met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was driving under the influence of marijuana. It did not, and we are, therefore, constrained to reverse the conviction. [Ibid.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bealor“so altering his or her normal physical coordination and mental faculties as to render such a person a danger to himself as well as to other persons on the highway.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.