People v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . [T]he People have the burden of proving the qualification of the witness to make such estimate and give such opinion. A witness should not be presumed to be so qualified. Without being shown to be qualified the estimate or opinion of a witness may be a guess or surmise. Hence the need for proof of qualification. Such qualification necessarily must be based on experience with motor vehicles. Ingredients make up and constitute experience. Such ingredients must be proven to establish experience. To permit “experience” to be based solely upon the term “operate”, “drive” or “driver” or the status of “officer” is to force a guess or surmise as to what experience may consist of or be based on. What might or must have been is not permitted. People v. Sacks, 276 N.Y.S.2d 321 , 12 N.E.2d 425 . “Driving” alone does not so qualify. A person may have operated vehicles for a long period of time and over many miles without being qualified to give an opinion or make an estimate as to the rate of speed in miles per hour. Time, occasion and familiarity are necessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown