Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 844 SW2D 22 - State v. Trumble

State v. Trumble’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Schmerber v. State of California · Murphy v. Carron · South Dakota v. Neville · Blydenburg v. David · Gooch v. Spradling

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

  1. “1. If a person under arrest ... refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020, then none shall be given and evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in a proceeding pursuant to section 565.024 or 565.060, RSMo, or section 577.010 or 577.012. The request of the officer shall include the reasons of the officer for requesting the person to submit to a test and also shall inform the person that evidence of refusal to take the test may be used against such person and that the person’s license shall be immediately revoked upon refusal to take the test.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Baldridge v. Director of Revenue · Mullen v. Director of Revenue
  2. “1. If a person under arrest, or who has been stopped pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020, then none shall be given and evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in a proceeding pursuant to section 565.024 or 565.060, RSMo, or section 577.010 or 577.012.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Smith · Douglass v. Wilson
  3. “The phrase “operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state” does not modify the phrase “driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” Instead, it modifies the phrase “any person who.” The reference to operating on public highways relates to the concept of implied consent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Peeler v. Director of Revenue

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.