775 So. 2d 950 - State v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 state decisions

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

1. “WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V STATE, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT?”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Townsend v. State · 774 So. 2d 692 - State v. Sandt

2. “Id. Concluding, this Court reiterated its agreement that the absence of those particular maintenance standards rendered Rule 11D-8.012 inadequate and inconsistent with the purpose of the implied consent law to ensure reliable test results. Id. The present case is unique”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Goodman v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement · 799 So. 2d 243 - Rafferty v. State

3. “the common law approach (the three-prong predicate) and the presumptions are mutually exclusive to the extent that the presumptions are specifically contingent upon compliance with the mandate for quality assurance of the implied consent law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dodge v. State · 817 So. 2d 891 - Leveritt v. State