State v. Polak’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2018
17 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 Kruger v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Harris v. State · 382 So. 2d 697 - State v. Bender · Lattarulo v. State · 584 So. 2d 993 - Pirez v. Brescher
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the state shall be deemed to have given his consent, subject to the provisions of this division, to a chemical test or tests of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The law enforcement agency by which such officer is employed shall designate which of the aforesaid tests shall be administered. Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to such a chemical test will result in the suspension of his *Page 211 privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 90 days; provided if such person objects to a blood test, the law enforcement agency shall designate that one of the other aforesaid tests be administered."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Mayo“We reject appellant’s argument that section 316.1932 permits license suspension for failure to take any lawful test. The statute clearly states the operator of a motor vehicle is deemed to give his or her consent to submit to an approved test. When the statute discusses suspension based on refusal to take any lawful test, we consider this provision must be read in pari materia with the consent portion of the statute requiring submission to an approved test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[B]ecause the intoximeter here was not an 'approved' instrument, as required by section 316. 1932(1)(a), the tests given to the defendants could not be considered 'approved' tests. As their consent was based on misinformation, namely, that their licenses would be suspended for failure to submit to an unapproved test, the defendants' consent cannot be deemed voluntary pursuant to the [ State v. Burnett , 536 So.2d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988),] rule."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Mayo
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.