State v. Tengan’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 6 Haw. App. 554 - State v. Souza (1987), State v. Ferrer (2001)
2 district · 39 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 State v. Pokini · Pacific Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. · Town v. Land Use Commission · State v. Kaneakua · State v. Raitz
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he effect of Tengan is to satisfy the “reliability” prong of the foundational requirements for admissibility.... It relieves the State of the burden of presenting expert testimony regarding the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer as a breath testing device in each DUI prosecution for purposes of admissibility of the test result. Nothing in Tengan suggests that the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer is an unquestioned fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Werle · State v. Werle“(1) The qualifications of personnel who administer chemical tests used to determine blood alcohol concentrations; (2) The procedures for specimen selection, collection, handling, and analysis; and (3) The manner of reporting and tabulation of the results.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In any criminal prosecution for a violation of section 291-4, ten-hundredths per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood within three hours after the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis or other approved analytical techniques of the defendant’s blood or breath shall be competent evidence that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged violation. (b) In any criminal prosecution for a violation of section 291-4, the amount of alcohol found in the defendant’s blood within three hours after the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis or other approved analytical techniques of the defendant’s blood or breath shall be competent evidence that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged violation and shall give rise to the following presumptions: (1) If there were five-hundredths per cent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood, it shall be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged violation. (2) If there were in excess of five-hundredths per cent but less than ten-hundredths per cent by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood, such fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether or not the defendant was at the time of the alleged violation under the influence of intoxicating liquor but shall not of itself give rise to any ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. DiBenedetto
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.