State v. Kost’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) All breath alcohol testing techniques, methods, and programs to be used for evidentiary purposes must have the approval of and be certified by the scientific director. [[Image here]] (c) All breath alcohol testing techniques, in order to be approved, shall meet, but not be limited to, the following: (1) continuous observation of the subject for a minimum period of time as set by the scientific director prior to the collection of the breath specimen, during which time the subject must not have ingested alcoholic beverages or other fluids, regurgitated, vomited, eaten, smoked, or introduced any substances into the mouth; ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Melendes · Gifford v. State

2. “(c) ... Breath specimens taken at the request or order of a peace officer must be taken and analysis made under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Texas Department of Public Safety, and by such persons as the Texas Department of Public Safety has certified to be qualified.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reed · Garcia v. State

3. ““Continuous” has been defined as “uninterrupted, unbroken, not intermittent or occasional.” BlacK’s Law DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979). See also B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987). “Observation” has been defined as an act or the faculty of observing. “Observe” has been defined as “to guard, watch.... to see or sense especially through directed careful analytic attention.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1973). Other than the authority to set the time period for the “continuous observation,” we find nothing in Chapter 19 of the Administrative Code or elsewhere that delegates to the scientific director the authority to vary the regulations of the Department of Public Safety, and, more particularly, to change the interpretation to be given “continuous observation.” Further, no written certificate, directive, memorandum or policy statement of the scientific director was introduced into evidence showing that such action was ever undertaken. The parties in their appellate briefs and oral arguments have not cited us to any such directives, and we have found none. Under the law the “continuous observation” required for any intoxilyzer test is that contained in said section 19.3(c) given its plain and ordinary meaning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reed