Commonwealth v. Kohl’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 125 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Stair (1997), Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (2017)
2 federal appellate · 125 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 · Delaware v. Prouse · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General rule. — Any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of determin ing the alcoholic content of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle: (1) while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or both; or (2) which was involved in an accident in which the operator or passenger of any vehicle involved or a pedestrian required treatment at a medical facility or was killed. (b) Suspension for refusal.— (1) If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of 12 months. (2) It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the person’s operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McDuff v. State · Cuvo v. De Biasi“Article I, section 8 has an identity and vitality that is separate and distinct from that of the Fourth Amendment. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not dispositive of questions regarding the rights guaranteed to citizens of the Commonwealth under the Pennsylvania Constitution. A state may provide through its constitution a basis for the rights and liberties of its citizens independent from that provided by the Federal Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he officers in Kohl did not have probable cause to believe the individuals were intoxicated. • The Supreme Court affirmed suppression. Notably, the Supreme Court clarified that implied consent is constitutional so long as the officer has probable cause, hypothesizing: “Indeed, if-the police officers had observed' any signs of intoxication, the blood tests would have been authorized.” Kohl, 615 at 31[6].”
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.