State v. Ferrer’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Shadden (2010), 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 - United States v. Horn (2002)
1 district · 31 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 8 Cal. 4th 587 - People v. Leahy · State v. Superior Court · State v. Toyomura · Tachibana v. State · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Telephone Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The police officer's observations of the field sobriety exercises, other than the [horizontal gaze nystagmus] test, should be placed in the same category as other commonly understood signs of impairment, such as glassy or bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, staggering, flushed face, labile emotions, odor of alcohol or driving patterns”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the psychomotor FSTs are admissible, we agree with defendants that any attempt to attach significance to defendants’ performance on these exercises is beyond that attributable to any of the other observations of a defendant’s conduct at the time of the arrest could be misleading to the jury and thus tip the scales so that the danger of unfair prejudice would outweigh its probative value. The likelihood of unfair prejudice does not outweigh the probative value as long as the witness simply describe their observations. Reference to the exercises by using terms such as ‘test,’ ‘fail’ or ‘points,’ however, creates a potential for enhancing the significance of the observations in relationship to the ultimate determination of impairment, as such terms give these layperson observations an aura of scientific validity. Therefore, such terms should be avoided to minimize the danger that the jury will attach greater significance to the results of the field sobriety exercises than to other lay observations of impairment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.