Arnold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2012
3 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 Boykin v. State · Erdman v. State · United States v. Fossler · State v. Spencer · Forte 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although appellant was not arrested for public intoxication, the police were authorized to [make such an arrest] because a police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for any offense committed in the officer’s view... .The fact that appellant was actually arrested for DWI, which admittedly was not committed in the officer’s view, does not render appellant’s arrest illegal. The general rule is that a warrantless arrest for DWI will be upheld even if the officer did not see the person driving, if the person committed the offense of public intoxication in the officer’s view and there is no proof of sham or fraud. See Warrick v. State, 634 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Crim.App.1982)(quoting United States v. Fossler, 597 F.2d 478 (5th Cir.1979)). [[Image here]] [Appellant argues] that, because the police were authorized to arrest him only for public intoxication and not DWI, the implied consent statute does not apply to him. [Consequently,] he argues the intoxilyzer test should not have been given to him and, because it was, the test was administered unlawfully and should have been suppressed under article 38.23. [[Image here]] In essence, appellant contends the implied consent law applies only to arrests for DWI. The Austin Court of Appeals rejected this argument in Elliott v. State, 908 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex.App.—Austin 1995, pet’n ref'd). The court in Elliott held that, by its language, the implied consent statute applied to a person arrested for any offense arising out of th”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beard 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.