State v. Eichhorst’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1171 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1176 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1177 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Crystal Fergusons v. City of Charleston · Young v. United States · State Ex Rel. Pollard v. Criminal Ct. of Marion Cty. · Oakland Housing Authority v. Rucker · Hannoy 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A physician or a person trained in obtaining bodily substance samples and acting under the direction of or under a protocol prepared by a physician who ... performs a chemical test on blood, urine, or other bodily substance obtained from a person; shall deliver the sample or disclose the results of the test to a law enforcement officer who requests the sample or results as a part of a criminal investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beldon v. State“applies when a sample has already been obtained. It allows a police officer to obtain the sample or the results from the analysis of a sample that has already been collected when the results are needed as part of a criminal investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beldon v. State“were provided to the prosecutor pursuant to a subpoena.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beldon 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.