State v. Asbridge’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2015
15 state decisions
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 California v. ARC America Corp. · Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration · Smithson v. United States · Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party · United States v. Kampiles
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the state toxicologist.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gietzen · State v. Gietzen“N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) ... authorizes the State Toxicologist to “approve satisfactory devices and methods of chemical analysis and determine the qualifications of individuals to conduct such analysis, and ... issue a certificate to all qualified operators.... ” Those records, when “certified by the clerk of the district court, must be admitted as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the records,” and a certified copy of the blood analysis issued by the State Toxicologist “must be accepted as prima fa-cie evidence of the results of a chemical analysis performed under this chapter.” N.D.C.C. § 38-20-07(7) and (8). Although subsections (7) and (8) state that these certified documents “must” be admitted and accepted as prima facie evidence, the legislature’s use of the word “must” merely requires their admission and specifies their evidentiary effect in court. That these certified documents “must” be admitted in evidence does not suggest the legislature intended the certified lists of approved chemical-test operators and chemical testing devices, and the approved method to conduct alcohol analysis, are the only documents that will furnish the foundation for admission of a blood-test result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Keller“eases the burden of the prosecution in laying an evidentiary foundation for a blood-alcohol report and balances procedural efficiency and scientific reliability by allowing scrupulously completed documents as evidence in lieu of lengthy testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gietzen
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.