Jarrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2026
21 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 Crawford v. Washington · Davis v. Washington · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Delaware v. Fensterer · Kentucky v. Stincer
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[CJertifieation of breath-test machines is removed from the direct investigation or direct proof of whether any particular defendant has operated a vehicle while intoxicated; the certificates are not prepared in anticipation of litigation in any particular case or with respect to implicating any specific defendant. The periodic certification of breath test machines — every 180 days — is mandated by the Indiana Code and accompanying regulations, regardless of whether the machine is ever actually used in an OWI investigation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ramirez v. State · Johnson v. State“If, in a prosecution for an offense under [Indiana Code chapter] 9-30-5, evidence establishes that: (1) a chemical test was performed on a test sample taken 'from the person charged with the offense within the period of time allowed for testing under section 2 of this chapter; and (2) the person charged with the offense had an [ACE] to at least eight-hun- . dredth (0.08) gram of alcohol per: (A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person’s blood at the time the test sample was taken; or (B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s breath; the trier of fact shall presume that the person charged with the offense had an [ACE] to at. least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per one hundred (100) milliliters of the person’s blood or per two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s breath at the time the person operated the vehicle. However, this presumption is rebutta-ble.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no . . . ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ramirez v. State
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.