7 Wash. App. 20 - State v. Krieg’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2015
22 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schmerber v. State of California · Hoffman v. State · 29 Wash. 2d 921 - State v. Miles · 77 Wash. 2d 930 - Davis v. County of King
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Upon receipt of a sworn report of a law enforcement officer that a person has refused to submit to a chemical test authorized under [AS 28.35.031], containing a statement of the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the grounds upon which his belief was based that the person was operating a motor vehicle in violation of [AS 28.35.030], the Department of Public Safety shall notify the person that his license or nonresident privilege to drive a motor vehicle in the state is revoked or suspended, or that no original license or permit will be issued for three months. In the same notice the department shall inform the person that he may initiate a proceeding in the district court to rescind the department’s action. The court proceeding shall be without jury and shall be limited to the issues of whether (1) the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been operating a motor vehicle in the state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; (2) the arrested person refused to submit to the breath test upon request of the officer after being advised that his refusal would result in the suspension, revocation, or denial of his license; and (3) the accused defendant was informed fairly of the nature of the tests, the accuracy of the methods, machines, equipment involved, the expertise of the person administering the tests, or operator of the machines, and the accused given such other reasonable information as may be requested by him. [[Image”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morales · Wirz v. State“[C]onsent is no longer an issue in this state, since all drivers have consented in advance to testing for the presence of alcohol. The issue becomes one of deciding whether the officer complied with the statute in such a fashion as to adequately apprise the driver of his right to withdraw his consent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Avery · State v. Avery“Except as provided in this section, the test administered shall be of the breath only. If an individual is unconscious or is under arrest for the crime of vehicular homicide as provided in RCW 46.61.520 or vehicular assault as provided in RCW 46.61.522, or if an individual is under arrest for the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs as provided in RCW 46.61.502, which arrest results from an accident in which there has been serious bodily injury to another person, a breath or blood test may be administered without the consent of the individual so arrested.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Avery · State v. Avery
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.