State v. Sisneros’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is appellant’s claim that this means in effect under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent of impairing to an appreciable degree his ability to operate his car in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in the full possession of his faculties and using reasonable care, would operate a similar vehicle under similar conditions. It is the contention of the state, on the other hand, that the law means any influence of intoxicating liquor, however slight, and the trial court instructed the jury on this latter theory. The Penal Code of 1913 ... prohibited any person who is intoxicated from driving a motor vehicle____ In 1927 ... the language was changed so that it read under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Our Legislature, it will be seen, required at first that the offender should be under the influence of liquor to the point of actual intoxication, but evidently became convinced that many persons who had not yet arrived at that state were a menace to public safety when driving a motor vehicle, and in order so far as possible to remove danger from an admixture of liquor and gasoline provided that any person influenced by the former, without specifying the extent to which such influence must go, must himself abstain from using the latter in a motor vehicle. It is a truism that a person who is even to the slightest extent under the influence of liquor, in the common and well-understood acceptation of the term, is to some degree at least less abl”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anand v. District of Columbia · Poulnot v. District of Columbia

2. ““ * * * ‘This court has, in reviewing judgments for manslaughter where death was caused by alleged reckless driying of automobiles, laid down the rule that where the proof is . sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that under the circumstances of the injuries the conduct of the drivers of the machines was so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of pedestrians, convictions for manslaughter will be warranted. These cases also recognize the rule that an injury caused by mere negligence, not amounting to a reckless, willful, and wanton disregard of consequences to others, cannot be made the basis of a criminal action. ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Yarborough · State v. Rice

3. ““The crime of reckless driving and that of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, are distinct offenses and are established by different evidence. A conviction of one would not be a bar to a prosecution for committing the other offense. While the evidence of intoxication might bear upon the question of whether the defendant was guilty of reckless driving, it does not necessarily prove it, but is a circumstance to be considered by the jury in deciding the issue.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spickard v. City of Lynchburg · Wolf v. State