McDaniel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
January 2020
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 442 So. 2d 164 - Moore v. State · Walker v. State · Gwarjanski v. State · 631 So. 2d 1073 - Britton v. State · Curtis v. City of Sheffield
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“been committed by any person while driving or in actual control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, evidence of the amount of alcohol or controlled substance in a person's blood at the alleged time, as determined by a chemical analysis of the person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance, shall be admissible. Where such a chemical test is made the following provisions shall apply: "(1) Chemical analyses of the person's blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance to be considered valid under the provisions of this section shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Department of Forensic Sciences and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Department of Forensic Sciences for this purpose. The court trying the case may take judicial notice of the methods approved by the Department of Forensic Sciences. The Department of Forensic Sciences is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the Department of Forensic Sciences. The Department of Forensic Sciences shall approve permits required in this section only for employees of state, county, municipal, and federal law enforcement agencies and for laboratory personnel employed by the Department of Forensic Sciences."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ewing v. State“"(c) A person directed to submit to a breath alcohol test procedure requiring two (2) breath samples, who fails to provide two (2) complete and acceptable samples sufficient for analysis by an approved evidential breath alcohol testing instrument shall be deemed to have refused the entire test. Such person shall be reported as having refused to submit to the chemical test."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ewing v. State“[T]he statutory predicate set out in § 32-5A-194 (a)(1) is only one way by which the I-5000 test results can be admitted into evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ewing v. State
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.