State v. Glanzman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘To constitute this crime, it is not necessary that the driver of the motor vehicle be shown to have been in any particular degree or state of intoxication, but only that .such driver at the time charged had consumed intoxicating liquor to such an extent as to influence or affect his driving of the motor vehicle.’ “ ‘Whether or not the driver of the motor vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a question of fact for the jury to determine under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.’ ” (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jeske · State v. Shaw.

2. ““It is a truism that a person who is even to the slightest extent ‘under the influence of liquor,’ in the common and well-understood acceptation of the term, is to some degree at least less able, either mentally or physically or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle as powerful and dangerous a mechanism as a modern automobile with safety to himself and the public. With the increasing number and speed of automobiles on our highways, and the appalling number of accidents resulting therefrom, it is not strange that the lawmaking power determined that any person, who of his own free will voluntarily lessened in the slightest degree his ability to handle such vehicles by the use of intoxicating liquor, should, while in such condition, be debarred from their use. The Legislature has placed no limitation on the extent of the influence required, nor can we add to their language. “Nor will it follow, as appellant seems to fear, that every man who has taken a drink falls within the ban of the statute. If that drink does not cause him to be ‘influenced’ in the ordinary and well-understood meaning of the term, he is not affected by the law. If he is so influenced, he must bear the consequences of his voluntary act by refraining from driving an automobile while that influence lasts [emphasis added].””

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

3. “The text of the remarks by the court (criticized by appellant) clearly show he was merely attempting to get appellant, when on the witness stand, to answer the questions without circumlocution and while it is better for the trial court not to thereten [sic] the defendant with disciplinary proceedings in the presence of the jury, the attitude of appellant, apparent to the learned trial judge and perforce not to us, may have indicated it was necessary to speak sharply to secure the attention of witness to the questions and responses thereto. In one instance appellant's own counsel had to admonish the appellant to answer the question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones