Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Wash. 2d 308 - State v. Hurd

5 Wash. 2d 308 - State v. Hurd’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
6
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 28 Wash. App. 319 - In Re the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Santore (1981), State v. Hardy (1971)

29 state decisions

7019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 William Garland v. State of Washington · State v. Sisneros · State of Arizona v. Duguid · Weston v. State of Arizona · State v. Stone

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

  1. ““For the purposes of this case, the defendant may be said to have been either ‘under the influence of’ or ‘affected by’ intoxicating liquor, if, at the time of the alleged unlawful operation of his automobile, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt establishes that intoxicating liquor has so far affected his nervous system, brain, or muscles, so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate his car in the manner that an ordinary prudent and cautious man, in the full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would operate or drive a similar vehicle under like circumstances.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[It is not unlawful for a person to consume [intoxicating liquor] [or] [marijuana] [or] [drugs] and drive a motor vehicle.] The law recognizes that a person may have consumed [intoxicating liquor] [or marijuana] [or] [drugs] and yet not be under the influence of it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) Every person who is convicted of a violation of (a) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle shall be punished . . .”
    2 later decisions 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.