55 Ohio App. 2d 253 - Foks v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “(1)Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given his consent to an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances as defined in section 18-8004, Idaho Code, provided that such test is administered at the request of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe that person has been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or of any other intoxicating substances. (2) Such person shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances. (3) At the time an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances is requested, the person shall be informed that if he refuses to take the test: (a) His license will be seized by the police officer and a temporary permit will be issued; provided, however, that no peace officer shall issue a temporary permit pursuant to this section to a driver whose license or permit has already been and is suspended or revoked because of previous violations: (b) He has the right to request a hearing within seven (7) days to show cause why he refused to take the test; (c) If he does not request a hearing or does not prevail at the hearing, his license will be suspended absolutely for one hundred eighty (180) days; and (d) After submitting to th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of McNeely

2. “"In a hearing conducted pursuant to R.C. 4511.191(F), the trial court shall impose the suspensionprovidedfor in R.C. 4511.191(D) only if it finds that the arrested person has failed to show error in the action taken by the registrar of motor vehicles. The burden is on the licensee to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was error." Hoban v. Rice, 25 Ohio St. 2d 111 , approved and followed.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cline v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles

3. “(1) the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcohol, (2) the person was placed under arrest, (3) the person refused to submit to a chemical test * * * upon the request of the arresting officer, and (4) the person was advised of the consequences of his refusal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cline v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles