Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 437 NW2D 570 - State v. Laughridge

State v. Laughridge’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 2000
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on South Dakota v. Neville · State v. Hitchens · State v. Florie · State v. Weidner

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

  1. “The rule for appellate review is that we will uphold the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact that it was more likely than not that [the defendant] was incapable of consenting or refusing a blood test. We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling on the basis that the evi dence is disputed, or that the trial court could have reached the opposite conclusion. The trial court’s ruling will only be set aside if there is no substantial evidence to support its finding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.