40 Ohio App. 2d 346 - Barber v. Curry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Accordingly, the two-hour time limitation set forth in R. C. 4511.19 relates not to the admissibility of chemical tests, when properly qualified, but, rather, as to when evidence of such test will give rise to the presumptions set forth in R. C. 4511.19. Accordingly, R. C. 4511.19 does not preclude the admissibility of evidence, otherwise properly qualified, of chemical tests administered subsequent to the two-hour time period set forth therein, but merely precludes evidence of a test not given within such time period from giving rise to the presumptions set forth in R. C. 4511.19. “Chemical tests, when properly qualified by evidence laying a foundation for their admission, were admitted into evidence prior to the adoption of R. C. 4511.19. See State v. Ezoto (1961), 116 Ohio App. 1 ; Mentor v. Giordano, supra. At page 146 of the opinion in Mentor , it is stated: “ ‘Chronology is an important element in “drunken driving” cases. A relationship must be established between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operating a vehicle.***’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 10 Ohio App. 3d 258 - State v. Dress · 62 Ohio App. 2d 63 - State v. Hernandez

2. ““At first reading, State v. Sickles (1970), 25 Ohio App. 2d 1 , State v. Miracle (1973), 33 Ohio App. 2d 289 , and In re Brooks (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 66 , would all give the impression of supporting plaintiffs position that the two-hour limitation provisions of R. C. 4511.19 preclude the admission into evidence of tests administered after the expiration of that period. However, these cases do not so hold and do not require such a conclusion. Furthermore a careful reading of R. C. 4511.19 indicates that it does not impose an exclusionary rule with regard to chemical tests, regardless of when they are given.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 62 Ohio App. 2d 63 - State v. Hernandez

3. ““Although no time limitation for a chemical test is specified in R.C. 4511.191, it is fundamental that such test be offered and refused within a reasonable time after the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol. It would also seem fundamental that the reasonable time period is that period of time within which the chemical test will provide reliable evidence of whether the person so arrested was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 20 Ohio App. 3d 197 - Brownfield v. McCullion