Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 533 P2D 968 - Winter v. Mayberry

Winter v. Mayberry’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
4
states following
April 2004
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2004

7 state decisions

501975198019902000decided

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 Schutt v. Macduff · Robertson v. State Ex Rel. Lester · Heer v. Department of Motor Vehicles · In Re Metcalf

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

  1. “In the case of In Re Metcalf, Okl., 501 P.2d 208 , we held that neither this Court nor the trial court may consider undue hardship as a ground to vacate or modify an order of the Department of Public Safety in a statutory proceeding to suspend a person’s driver’s license. The fact that the suspension of the Appellant’s driver’s license will prevent him from earning a living, since he is a truck driver and has no other training or skills, may not be considered by this Court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A person who operates or drives a motor vehicle in this state ... shall be considered to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of the person’s blood or breath if lawfully arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle ... while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.... The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the person was operating or driving a motor vehicle ... in this state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage ....”
    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.