Ackerman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
55
cited by 55 later decisions
3
states following
January 2019
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Oregon v. Elstad · Stansbury v. California · Pirtle v. State · Robbins v. MacKenzie · Moran 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, the issue is appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Combs v. State · Friend v. State“Furthermore, consent to submit to a chemical blood test under Indiana's implied consent law is only consent to submit to an 'analysis of a person's blood ... for the determination of the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a drug.' " Id. ; see I.C. § 9-13-2-22. Therefore, we concluded that "unlike the suspect in Pirtle , a suspect who is asked to submit to a chemical blood tests does not subject himself to a general search without probable cause.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“are non-invasive[,] take little time to administer[,] are narrow in scope[,] and are unlikely to reveal any incriminating evidence other than impairment.”
3 later decisions 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.