State v. Schimmel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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. “"To be prejudicial, absent a fundamental error, improper closing argument by the state's attorney must have stepped beyond the bounds of any fair and reasonable criticism of the evidence, or any fair and reasonable argument based upon any theory of the case that has support in the evidence. `He is allowed a wide latitude of speech, and must be protected therein. He has a right to be heard before the jury upon every question of fact in the case, and in such decorous manner as his judgment dictates. It is his duty to use all the convincing power of which he has command, and the weapons of wit and satire and of ridicule are all available to him so long as he keeps within the record.'"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vantreece · State v. Harmon

2. “Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state is deemed to have given consent to submit to an on-site screening test or tests of the person’s breath for the purpose of estimating the alcohol content of the person’s blood upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reason to believe that the person committed a moving traffic violation or was involved in a traffic accident as a driver, and in conjunction with the violation or the accident the officer has, through the officer’s observations, formulated an opinion that the person’s body contains alcohol.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Fargo v. Ruether · State v. Woytassek

3. “The ethanol sensor used in the A.L.E.R. T. instrument is manufactured by Tagu-chi Gas-Electric Transducer (TGS). Quoting from its brochure, the manufacturer ... states: The characteristics of the TGS are not at present sufficiently reproducible to make it suitable for use in laboratory or analytical instruments where high accuracy is required [[Image here]] Quoted in Erwin, 2 Defense of Drunk Driving Cases § 24.11 (3d ed. 1987) (emphasis added [by court])_[T]he A.L.E.R.T. unit’s response is not specific for ethanol and could possibly emit a “Fail” signal due to the presence of some other chemical substance. While a quick and convenient tool for establishing probable cause for an arrest, the A.L.E.R.T. screening test can be unreliable. Not only can the test register an inaccurate percentage of alcohol present in the breath, it may also be inaccurate as to the presence or absence of any alcohol at all. See State v. Deshaw, 404 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1987). Therefore, because of the questionable accuracy of the A.L.E.R.T. testing instrument, it lacks the indicia of scientific reliability necessary to provide an evidentiary basis for establishing that an individual was driving in violation of [North Dakota’s OUI statute].... See Erwin, 2 Defense of Drunk Driving Cases § 24.11(1) for a discussion of studies done in evaluating the accuracy of the A.L.E.R.T. breath testing unit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ifill