392 So. 2d 1037 - State v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Maintenance checks will be performed on a routine basis at least once every four months, by the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory. Items to be checked shall be not limited to the following: "A. Each lot of ampuls shall be spotchecked for performance. "B. Clean instrument. "C. Calibration check of standard ampuls. "D. Running of a known alcohol solution in which results shall be within plus or minus.010g% or the known alcohol value. (See Exhibit C). "E. In the event any repair work is needed, it will be recorded in detail (See Exhibits D & E). "Repair work will be performed by technicians working for the Applied Technology Section of the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory who are certified by the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, Office of Health Services and Environmental Quality, Bureau of Laboratories, to perform such maintenance. "The Applied Technology Section of Louisiana Police Crime Laboratory shall have the authority to instruct other individuals to perform such maintenance (Exhibit F). Upon satisfactory completion of such training the individual shall be certified to perform maintenance by the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, Office of Health Services and Environmental Quality, Bureau of Laboratories. "Records covering maintenance, etc., of the P.E.I. (photo-electric intoximeter) instrument will be kept by the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 392 So. 2d 1043 - State v. Westbrook

2. “The wrongful introduction of a chemical analysis which by law presumed the defendant to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest was manifestly prejudicial to the defendant's case. Although other independent evidence of intoxication was presented by the State at the trial of the case, we are prohibited by the constitution from deciding the factual question of guilt or innocence and must restrict our scope of review to questions of law in criminal cases. La. Const. 1974, Art. 5, § 5. Consequently, we cannot speculate as to what decision the trier of fact would or should have made had the inadmissible evidence not been introduced. Instead, we are required to review the record for reversible errors of law and to declare them when found. State v. Burnette, 353 So.2d 989 (La.1977). See also State v. Graham, 360 So.2d 853 (La.1978), and State v. Morrison, 392 So.2d 1037 (La. 1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 445 So. 2d 76 - State v. Dayton

3. “Chemical analyses of the person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance, to be considered valid under the provisions of this Part, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Department of Public Safety and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by said department for this purpose. The Department of Public Safety is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the department.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 392 So. 2d 1043 - State v. Westbrook