Pollard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2016
17 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 · Arkansas v. Sanders · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Ortiz v. State · Reid v. State
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) As used in this section, 'intoxicated' means under the influence of: (1) alcohol; % * * a # %* such that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of one's faculties to such an extent as to endanger any person. (b) A person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a Class A misdemeanor...." (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rippy v. State · Fought v. State“"In Shultz v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1127 (transfer denied), the defendant, while being treated in a hospital emergency room for injuries received in a wreck, had a blood sample withdrawn. The trial court permitted the laboratory technician who performed the blood test to testify to the incriminating blood alcohol level the test had revealed .... The Shultz court stated ...: "The determination by the Supreme Court in Schmerber [v. California, (1966) 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ], that there was no constitutional impediment to drawing a blood sample to determine the physical condition of a suspect provides a basis for Indiana statutes on the subject. IC. 9-4-4.5-1 provides, inter alia, that '[alny person who drives ... a vehicle on the public highways of this state shall be deemed, by virtue of such driving, ... to have given his implied consent to submit to a chemical test for intoxication when asked to submit to such tests by any law enforcement officer. 1.0. 9-4-4.5-2 defines 'chemical test' as including blood tests taken for the determination of the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Thus, despite his protestation to the contrary, Shultz did indeed consent to the blood test in question. The gist of his argument going to this issue implies that because the doctor who ordered the blood test did not testify as to a medical necessity for the test, it was taken for the sole purpose of determining Shultz's blood alcohol content. Shultz a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zimmerman v. State“In Shultz v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1127 (transfer denied), the defendant, while being treated in a hospital emergency room for injuries received in a wreck, had a blood sample withdrawn. The trial court permitted the laboratory technician who performed the blood test to testify to the incriminating blood alcohol level the test had revealed .... The Shultz court stated ...:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zimmerman v. State
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.