401 Ill. App. 3d 958 - People v. Ebert’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
August 2019
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Burnside · 207 Ill. 2d 68 - People v. Moore · 82 Ill. 2d 234 - People v. Young · 63 Ill. 2d 364 - People v. Van De Rostyne · 354 Ill. App. 3d 549 - People v. Bishop
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The standards exist, not for their own sakes, but in service of the truth-seeking function, which they promote by ensuring that blood, breath, and urine tests are conducted in a manner that produces reliable results. If the standards are to serve this purpose, the rule of substantial compliance must be one that neither blithely ignores the standards nor enforces them in a purely rote manner. We are therefore reluctant to relax the standards when doing so would require inquiry into the scientific basis for a particular standard. However, when it is clear that a particular deviation from the mandated procedures does not pertain to a matter of science, a court is perfectly competent to determine whether, in a given case, the deviation compromised the integrity of the testing process." (Emphasis added.) Ebert, 401 Ill.App.3d at 965 , 341 Ill.Dec. 671 , 931 N.E.2d 279 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“document that the motorist does nothing that might impair the accuracy of the breath test,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Hall“failure to strictly comply with the regulation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Hall
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.