State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2011
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Schmerber v. State of California · Breithaupt v. Abram · Hialeah, Inc. v. Bell · State v. Oevering · State v. Mitchell
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Any person whose consent is implied as provided in this section shall be deemed to have consented to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided herein if such person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility as a result of his involvement as a driver in a motor vehicle accident and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition shall be deemed not to have withdrawn his consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not such person is told that his failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state. Any person who is capable of refusal shall be told that his failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 6 months for a first refusal, or for a period of 1 year if the driving privilege of such person has been suspended previously as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests. The refusal to submit to a blood test upon the request of a law enforcement officer shall be admissible in evi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““This Court is not free to ignore plain statutory language and obvious legislative intent. Any careful reading of Section 322.261 (now 316.1932) leads to the inescapable conclusion that a person is given the right to refuse testing. If this were not so, it is unclear why the Legislature provided for a definite sanction and a detail procedure for the enforcement of such sanction”, (underscoring supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Craft““In this case the trooper Harper told Williams, as the Florida Supreme Court said it must in Sambrine, that he could refuse the blood test, and if he did his license would be suspended.” (underscoring supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Craft
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.