Volz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2023
11 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 Martinez v. State · Sorenson v. State · Jahnke v. State · Jahnke v. State · Scheikofsky v. State
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle, to drive or have actual physical control of any vehicle within this state. “(b) Upon the trial of any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person’s blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance shall give rise to the following presumptions: * * * * * * * “(iii) If there was at that time ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whitfield v. State“(b) A person is guilty of aggravated homicide by vehicle and shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than twenty (20) years, if: (i) While operating or driving a vehicle in violation of W.S. 10-6-103, 31-5-233 or 41-13-206, he causes the death of another person and the violation is the proximate cause of the death; or (ii) He operates or drives a vehicle in a reckless manner, and his conduct is the proximate cause of the death of another person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sampsell v. State“No particular amount of consideration is required. There need be no specific entry into the record of reason why probation is denied nor does the word “probation” even need be mentioned by the court if it can be determined from the proceedings that it has been considered, however slightly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burk 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.