Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 SW2D 89 - Forte v. State

Forte v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
6
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Thomas v. State (1986), McCambridge v. State (1986)

2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions

4401986199020002010decided

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 · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Wade · Escobedo v. Illinois · Sandstrom v. Montana

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

  1. “[T]he trier of fact must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the chemical test provides trustworthy evidence of alcohol concentration in a defendant’s breath, blood or urine. [And,] the [trier of fact] must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an inference can be made from the results of the chemical test that the defendant had [the statutorily defined] alcohol concentration in his body at the time of the offense.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of these circumstances into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[h]aving an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.