State v. Easthope’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2016
7 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Jones v. United States · United States v. Jones · Hulsey v. Arkansas · United States v. Hankish
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That concern was fully satisfied in the circumstances of this case. Following defendant’s arrest on a warrant, the State filed a motion to compel discovery of body fluids. Defendant and his counsel were notified, an adversary healing was held, and ... the magistrate ordered the taking of a blood sample. That course of events, which provided the defendant greater procedural protection than he has under a search warrant (notably his participation in the hearing), satisfied the constitutional requirements for the invasion of a person’s body.”
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.