6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Hunter v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hunter v. State Anchor | green | “we restate the rule that, in montana, subsequent consent does not cure a prior refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test.” | 3 |
| 2 | State v. Moore | green | “we . . . decline to hold with a rule of law which would rigidly and unreasonably bind an arrested person to his first words spoken, no matter how quickly and under what circumstances those words are withdrawn.” | 3 |
| 3 | Standish v. Department of Revenue | green | “we believe that the administration of the test should be encouraged and the person arrested should be given every reasonable opportunity to submit to it.” | 3 |
| 4 | Department of Licensing v. Lax | green | “if a refusal can be withdrawn or negated, the drunk driver has a tool which could be used to manipulate the officer and gain extra time. . . . this individualized consideration may take time more profitably spent dealing with other, perhaps more urgent tasks.” | 3 |
| 5 | Schroeder v. State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety | green | “e reject contention that his eventual request to take a chemical sobriety test vitiated his prior refusals.” | 3 |
| 6 | Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Goodman | green | “subsequent testing cure a violation of the statute, if it could, then delays in testing would increase so bloodstream alcohol levels could deteriorate, and accurate evidence samples could no longer be obtained.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.