State v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “turns on the ignition, starts and maintains the motor in operation and remains in the driver's seat behind the steering wheel, with the intent to move the vehicle,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. DiFrancisco · 203 N.J. Super. 275 - State v. Stiene

2. “[a] stationary vehicle is not being operated in the sense required for conviction; nor was the purpose of the act to make proof of an unexecuted intent to drive (operate) sufficient to convict of the offense specified therein.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Daly · State v. Mulcahy

3. ““Under my colleagues’ view if an intoxicated person gets into an automobile, sits in the driver’s seat and starts tbe motor, be is guilty of operating tbe vehicle while under tbe influence of intoxicating liquor. Tbe mere act of making tbe motor run, even though tbe brake remains on and the gear shift in park position, is' sufficient to convict. Thus, a person under' the influence, who starts the motor to tahe advantage of the heater-on a cold night, or-perhaps to use the radio without running down the battery, while he waits for the appearance of someone else, or perhaps while'he'waits to recover his sobriety, or for other conceivable reasons, may be found guilty of operating the car. Such suggestions can be made the butt of much caustic or sardonic humor, but just as the public deserves protection against the drunken driver, no individual should be convicted as such a driver or operator unless he fits the description established by the Legislature.” 40 N. J. at 363 (emphasis supplied). [I] t seems to me, on the whole record of the statute under consideration, that the legislative intent was to ban driving on the roadways of the State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A stationary vehicle is not being operated in the sense required for conviction; nor was the purpose of the act to make proof of an unexecuted intent to drive (operate) sufficient to convict of the offense specified therein.” 40 N. J. at 367 (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Daly