People v. Duroncelay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 129 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The extraction of blood for testing purposes, is, of course, an experience which, every day, many undergo without hardship or ill effects. When this fact, together with the scientific reliability of blood alcohol tests in establishing guilt or innocence, is considered in the light of the imperative public interest involved, the taking of a sample for such a test without consent cannot be regarded as an unreasonable search and seizure where, as here, the extraction is made in a medically approved manner and is incident to the lawful arrest of one who is reasonably believed to have violated section 501 of the Vehicle Code”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Conterno · 261 Cal. App. 2d 282 - Carlton v. Superior Court

2. “Nor should it be ignored that a test of this kind may serve to exonerate, as well as to convict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Conterno · 153 Cal. App. 2d 260 - People v. Markham

3. “"It is obvious from the evidence that, before the blood sample was taken at the request of the highway patrolman, there was reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed the felony of which he was convicted, and he could have been lawfully arrested at that time. Pen.Code § 836. There is no claim that defendant was not arrested within a reasonable time or that the arrest was not made on the basis of the facts known to the officer who investigated the accident, * * *." 312 P.2d at page 693 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bock