40 Ohio App. 2d 313 - Siegwald v. Curry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After the arrest, detention, or any other taking into custody of a person, with or without a warrant, such person shall be permitted forthwith facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his choice who is entitled to practice in the courts of this state, or to communicate with any other person of his choice for the purpose of obtaining counsel. Such communication may be made by a reasonable number of telephone calls or in any other reasonable manner. Such person shall have a right to be visited immediately by any attorney at law so obtained who is entitled to practice in the courts of this state, and to consult with him privately. No officer or any other agent of this state shall prevent, attempt to prevent, or advise such person against the communication, visit, or consultation provided for by this section.” 7”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 70 Ohio App. 3d 447 - Stout v. McCullion · Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety

2. “"It is not a refusal to take the required test for the arrested person to request the exercise of his statutory right, ... to telephone an attorney during this reasonable time period in which he is determining whether to take the test, so long as the delay occasioned by such communication is short and reasonable. On the other hand, where questions are asked or requests made, including a request to consult an attorney, as a subterfuge to avoid taking a test, there is a refusal ... Basically, whether or not there has been a refusal is a factual determination to be made by the trial court based upon the facts and circumstances of the case."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kuntz v. State Highway Commissioner · 70 Ohio App. 3d 447 - Stout v. McCullion

3. “‘ ‘ To allow a person to attempt to call his attorney and obtain advice from him would in no way emasculate the implied consent law and make it practically noneffective. On the' contrary, there would probably be fewer refusals to take tests if the advice of an attorney were secured, prior to refusal. ■ ‘“It is difficult to envisage a circumstance where a competent attorney would advise a client to refuse to take the chemical test and suffer the consequences of a six months’ suspension of his driving rights, and the use of such refusal against him at trial. In many, if not most, instances, the punishment imposed following a conviction for driving-while under the influence of alcohol would be less onerous than the six months’ suspension of driving rights imposed for a refusal to take the chemical test. And, of course, a refusal to take the test is no assurance that there will not be a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol because there is often sufficient evidence, plus the inferences that maybe made from the fact of refusing to take the test, to support a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol, even where there is a refusal to take the test.” :”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 Ohio App. 2d 155 - Raine v. Curry