Commonwealth v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Shiffler · Commonwealth v. Briggs · Commonwealth v. Horn · Kozak v. Struth · McGrory v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General impairment.— (1) An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. [[Image here]] (d) Controlled substances. — -An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances: [[Image here]] (3) The individual is under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual's ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“An experienced police officer closely observed [Ms. Graham’s] behavior, demeanor, unsteadiness, and inability to perform field sobriety tests, all of which led him to request laboratory tests for the detection of [both alcohol and] controlled substances in [Ms. Graham’s] blood. [Ms. Graham] admitted taking [Celéxa, Hydro Pam, and Vistaril as prescribed and admitted that all three prescription drugs were “in her system” while she was driving]. The Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that[, on October 1, 2011, Ms. Graham drove her vehicle while she was “under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairfed her] ability to safely drive ... the vehicle,” in violation of] subsection 3802(d)[ (3) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“while subsection 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving when there is any quantity of illegal drug in one’s blood, subsections 3802(d) (2) and (d) (3) do not require that a drug be chemically detectible in the defendant’s body or that blood tests be performed. Rather, the text of subsections 3802(d) (2) and (d) (3) requires only that one’s ability to safely drive be impaired because of the influence of a drug.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.