Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 744 N.W.2d 340 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022

11 state decisions

80200820102020decided

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 Schmerber v. State of California · Preston v. United States · 38 Cal. 4th 811 - People v. Thompson · 173 Wis. 2d 529 - State v. Bohling · United States v. Reid

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. “In all, more than two and a half hours passed between the time of the accident and the time Johnson’s blood was drawn. During this time, his blood-alcohol concentration was continually diminishing due to the natural dissipation of alcohol. The traffic officer testified that he believed evidence of Johnson’s blood-alcohol concentration would be destroyed if he waited to draw blood until after a search warrant was obtained. We conclude that the officers complied with section 321J.10A, which requires only a reasonable belief that the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would threaten the destruction of the evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Schmerber can be read in either of two ways: (a) that the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream alone constitutes a sufficient exigency for a warrantless blood draw to obtain evidence of intoxication following a lawful arrest for a drunk driving related violation or crime−as opposed to taking a blood sample for other reasons, such as to determine blood type; or (b) that the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream, coupled with an accident, hospitalization, and the lapse of two hours until arrest, constitute exigent circumstances for such a blood draw.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.