Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 454 N.W.2d 312 - Keepseagle v. Backes

Keepseagle v. Backes’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2025

1 district · 10 state decisions

801990200020102020decided

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 County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society of North Dakota · Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner · State v. VandeHoven · State v. Kimball · State v. Vetsch

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

  1. “If a person submits to a test under section 39-20-01, 39-20-02, or 39-20-03 and the test shows that person to have an alcohol concentration of at least ten one-hundredths of one percent by weight ... at the time of the performance of a chemical test within two hours after the driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle, the following procedures apply....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Our primary objective in the interpretation of a statute is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. We look first to the language of the statute. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. If a statute’s language is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, we may consider extrinsic aids, including legislative history, along with the language of the statute, to ascertain legislative intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While the language of the statute in question may be ambiguous and may reasonably be interpreted as requiring the “chemical test” to be “performed” within two hours of driving, the common sense interpretation is that if the blood sample is drawn within two hours and adequately preserved for analysis, the results are valid.”
    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.