605 So. 2d 488 - State v. Berger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e determine that HRS’ failure to promulgate a rule to provide a test for reliability at the monthly and annual inspections does not preclude the state’s use of breath testing results in a criminal trial. The statutory language of section 316.1932(l)(f)l., Florida Statutes (1991), very clearly requires that the rules and regulations precisely specify the test or tests and that they be adopted after public hearing. We agree ... that these changes are insubstantial and do not affect the reliability of the tests.... Thus, we conclude ... that the entire administrative scheme sufficiently ensures the reliability of results even though it does not set forth specific standards with reference to monthly and annual inspections. Thus, we hold that the trial court erred in suppressing the breath test results in the instant case.”

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

2. “I. DOES THE COUNTY COURT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? MUST THE APPELLEES SEEK ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF PRIOR TO OBTAINING JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR CLAIMS? II. DOES THE FAILURE OF HRS TO PROMULGATE A RULE, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH COULD PROVIDE A TEST FOR RELIABILITY AT THE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL INSPECTIONS PRECLUDE THE STATE'S USE OF BREATH TESTING RESULTS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL? III. WHEN A DEFENDANT CONSENTS TO AN APPROVED CHEMICAL TEST, BUT IS GIVEN A NONAPPROVED TEST, MAY THE STATE INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE NONAPPROVED TEST BY ESTABLISHING THE TRADITIONAL PREDICATE FOR THE INTRODUCTION INTO EVIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 635 So. 2d 977 - Veilleux v. State

3. “I. ARE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULES 10D-42.023 [1] and 10D-42.024 [2] [AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO AUGUST 1, 1991] VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND IF SO, DOES THIS PRECLUDE THE STATE'S USE OF BREATH TESTING RESULTS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL? II. DO THE CURRENT METHODS OF HRS'S MONTHLY AND YEARLY MAINTENANCE ACCURACY CHECKS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 316.1932(1)(f)1, FLORIDA STATUTES, [3] AND IF NOT, DOES THIS PRECLUDE THE STATE'S USE OF BREATH TESTING RESULTS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL? III. MAY THE DEFENDANT RAISE THESE ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE COUNTY COURT?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 630 So. 2d 1129 - State v. Folsom