Commonwealth v. Mumma’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL (1989), Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Renwick (1996)
54 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 68 Pa. Commw. 541 - Waigand v. Commonwealth · In Re Appeal From Suspension of Operating Privileges of Capozzoli · In Re Apepal From Susupension of Operator's License of Budd · Commonwealth v. Wroblewski · 38 Pa. Commw. 400 - Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Jones
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Suspension for refusal.— (1) If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of 12 months.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) was arrested for driving under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned that refusal might result in a license suspension.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have consistently held that anything substantially less than an unqualified, unequivocal assent to take a breathalyzer test constitutes a refusal under § 1547.... A refusal need not be expressed in words, but can be implied from a motorist’s actions. For exafnple, a motorist’s failure to provide sufficient air to permit the test to be made is tantamount to a refusal....”
1 later decision 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.