State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2001
8 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 396 So. 2d 1107 - Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com'n · St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm · 406 So. 2d 1089 - Parker v. State · State v. Rodriquez · 157 So. 2d 422 - Armstrong v. City of Edgewater
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Slaney · State v. Brigham“"Thus, the general scheme for determining if a motorist is impaired is: (1) before an arrest, the suspect may consent to or demand a breath test; and (2) after an arrest, the person is deemed to have implicitly consented to a breath test and a urine test. The first exception to this general scheme is given in section 316.1932(1)(c), whereby a `person whose consent is implied' i.e., is lawfully arrested, is taken for treatment to a medical facility and a breath or urine test is impossible or impractical to perform. Only then may a blood test be requested, subject to the person's refusal. The subsection further provides penalties for such a refusal but does not authorize the officer to proceed with the test regardless of the refusal. The other exception to the general scheme of breath and urine testing is found in section 316.1933(1), the statute in question. Again, this statute expressly authorizes blood tests where an officer has probable cause to believe an impaired driver has caused death or serious injury to a human being. In short, these sections together narrowly define the circumstances in which testing for impairment is allowed absent express consent, and they carve out two narrow exceptions to the scheme which allow blood tests."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Slaney“if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by ... a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages ... has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, that person shall submit, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, to a test of the person’s blood for the purposes of determining the alcoholic content thereof.... The term “serious bodily injury” means an injury to any person, including the driver, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Smith 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.