State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1991
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Schultz v. State · Garcia v. State · Sidney v. State · Barraza v. State · McGinty 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We view Garcia as holding that if the State intends to proceed against the defendant under § 1(a)(2)(A) of the DWI statute on the basis that the defendant was intoxicated because he had lost the use of his mental and physical faculties due to the ingestion of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination thereof, it must name the intoxicant or combination thereof in the charging instrument. Otherwise, the defendant does not have proper notice of the charge against him. (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sullivan v. State“(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 those substances into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration [in the blood, breath, or urine] of 0.10 or more.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter
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.