State v. Tagner’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. “673 So.2d 57 at 60 . The court observed that the experts here concede that they could not provide a quantitative range of impairment correlating to the cocaine in defendant's blood because this body of information does not exist in a fashion similar to the research on alcohol. If the inability to quantify the degree of impairment was a basis for disallowing evidence of cocaine impairment, such evidence would necessarily be suppressed in every case. Id. at 59 . [21] See State v. Andres, 552 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (”

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

2. “correct when it rejected the trial court's conclusion that it was necessary for the toxicologist to estimate the degree of impairment caused by the existence of the drugs.”

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

3. “same item of evidence may be admissible in one case and not in another, depending upon the relation of that item to the other evidence.”

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