Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 NW2D 621 - State v. Chihanski

State v. Chihanski’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2026

12 state decisions

901995200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Schmerber v. State of California · Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner · State v. Hilling

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

  1. “Buchholtz had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke within the twenty minutes leading up to the collection of the breath samples. The district court held Trooper Polomny had not ascertained Buchholtz had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke within twenty minutes of the test because (1) Trooper Polomny did not maintain continuous observation of Buchholtz for the twenty-minute period between arrest and testing and (2) Trooper Polomny did not check Buchholtz's mouth upon arrest to ensure there was nothing in his mouth at the start of the period. [¶ 12] This Court has”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under the Approved Method, ... an officer must ascertain whether a subject has smoked, eaten or drunk anything before obtaining a sample of the subject’s breath. The duty to assure the integrity of the sample requires the officer to maintain observation of the subject, and necessarily limits the extent of the privacy reasonably available under the circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[F]ederal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re RWS

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.