State v. McCaslin’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2010
12 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 State v. Sensing
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the tests were performed in accordance with the standards and operating procedure promulgated by the forensic services division of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, (2) that he was properly certified in accordance with those standards, (3) that the evidentiary breath testing instrument used was certified by the forensic services division, was tested regularly for accuracy and was working properly when the breath test was performed, (4) that the motorist was observed for the requisite 20 minutes prior to the test, and during this period, he did not have foreign matter in his mouth, did not consume any alcoholic beverage, smoke, or regurgitate, (5) evidence that he followed the prescribed operational procedure, (6) identify the print-out record offered in evidence as the result of the test given to the person tested.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brooks · State v. Korsakov“As in any case it is impossible to determine the weight, if any, given by a jury to any item of evidence. However, when the only scientific evidence presented at trial was admitted in error we cannot say that the effect was harmless.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Marquez · State v. Deloit“[T]he State’s position is misplaced as it is the State’s burden, not the defendant’s, to present testimony through the testing officer that the Sensing pre-test requirements were met. Therefore, a claim that the defendant either presented or failed to present testimony of regurgitation is irrelevant in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Deloit
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.