Lauderdale v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably California v. Trombetta (1984), 115 Wash. 2d 609 - State v. Dennison (1990)
2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Chambers v. Mississippi · Alford v. United States · Alexander v. Louisiana · 12 Cal. 3d 641 - People v. Hitch
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A denial of the right to [analyze a breathalyzer's components], that is to say, to 'cross-examine' the results of the test, would be reversible error without any need for a showing of prejudice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) A person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if the person operates or drives a motor vehicle or operates an aircraft or a watercraft (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or any controlled substance listed in AS 11.71.140 — 11.71.-190; (2) when, as determined by a chemical test taken within four hours after the alleged offense was committed, there is 0.10 per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood or 100 milligrams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, or when there is 0.10 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of the person’s breath; or (3)while the person is under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and another substance. (b) Driving while intoxicated is a class A misdemeanor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ward v. State“The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer a chemical test in addition to the test administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer; the fact that the person under arrest sought to obtain such an additional test, and failed or was unable to do so, is likewise admissible in evidence.”
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.