Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2026
1 federal appellate · 6 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Michigan v. Long · South Dakota v. Neville · Anschuetz & Co. v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority · Wrenn v. Capstone Medical Center
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor Subsequent Offense”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Upon the trial of any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance, or the combined influence of alcohol and any other intoxicating substance, evidence of the alcohol concentration in the blood or breath of the person as shown by analysis of the blood or breath of the person performed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 752 and 759 of this title or evidence of the presence or concentration of any other intoxicating substance as shown by analysis of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine specimens in accordance with the provisions of Sections 752 and 759 of this title is admissible. Evidence that the person has refused to submit to either of said analyses is also admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. STATE v. ARMSTRONG“[Section] 756, which allows admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test, meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. It is a lawful penalty to use evidence that a driver refused such a sobriety test. It is not an act coerced, and is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. STATE v. ARMSTRONG
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.