Driver v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• EMIT tests have been found sufficiently reliable to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Somers v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2012-06-06· cited 45×
• Wood v. State Personnel Bd.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1997-08-08· cited 8×
• Martin v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1993-03-05· cited 6×
• Thomas v. McBride
  N.D. Indiana· 1998-05-04· cited 1×
• Somers, Aaron
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2012-06-06
• Lacey v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1994-05-06

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Wolff v. McDonnell
  Supreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 12,327×
• Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill
  Supreme Court· 1985-06-17· cited 4,010×
• Richard W. Spence v. Hal Farrier
  Eighth Circuit· 1986-12-24· cited 124×
• Smith v. State
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1983-01-04· cited 45×
• Wykoff v. Resig
  N.D. Indiana· 1985-07-30· cited 44×
• Jensen v. Lick
  D. North Dakota· 1984-01-09· cited 37×
• Herman Harmon v. Calvin D. Auger, Warden
  Eighth Circuit· 1985-07-18· cited 36×
• Peranzo v. Coughlin
  S.D. New York· 1985-05-14· cited 34×
• Higgs v. Wilson
  W.D. Kentucky· 1985-06-27· cited 30×
• Heidelburg v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1988-02-18· cited 20×
• Hoeppner v. State
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 1985-09-24· cited 10×