45 Md. App. 598 - Loscomb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably People v. Lowe (1983), Ervin v. State (1999)
27 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 · Drews v. Maryland · Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. · Thomas v. State · Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips of Fairfax, Inc. v. Chillum Terrace Ltd. Partnership
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) It shall be the duty of any police officer who stops or detains any person who he has reasonable grounds to believe is or has been operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, or who is or has been operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle while his ability was impaired by the consumption of alcohol to do all the following things: . . . 2. Request that he take a chemical test or tests of his blood.... . . . 4. File with the Department of Motor Vehicles ... a sworn report ... that said person refused to take the chemical test for alcohol....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Loscomb · State v. Moon“"(a) Test not compulsory. A person may not be compelled to submit to a chemical analysis provided for in this subtitle. Evidence of chemical analysis is not admissible if obtained contrary to its provisions. " (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Loscomb · State v. Moon“(a) In general. — In a proceeding in which a person is charged with a violation of § 388A of Article 27 or with driving or attempting to drive a vehicle in violation of § 21-902 of the Transportation Article, the amount of alcohol in the person’s breath or blood shown in chemical analysis as provided in this subtitle is admissible in evidence and has the effect set forth in subsections (b) through (e) of this section. (b) No intoxication presumed. — If there was in his blood at the time of testing 0.05 percent or less, by weight, of alcohol, as determined by an analysis of his blood or breath, it shall be presumed that the defendant was not intoxicated and that his driving ability was not impaired by the consumption of alcohol. (c) No presumption. — If there was in his blood at the time of testing more than 0.05 percent, but less than 0.10 percent, by weight, of alcohol, as determined by an analysis of his blood or breath, this fact may not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not intoxicated or that his driving ability was or was not impaired by the consumption of alcohol, but this fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. (d) Prima facie evidence of impairment. — If there was in his blood at the time of testing 0.10 percent, or more, by weight, of alcohol, as determined by an analysis of his blood or breath, it shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant’s driving ability was impai”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Moon
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.