How cited: State v. Sinclair · Go Syfert

State v. Sinclair (1971)

green · 24 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 11
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197319992026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green State v. Peters (1987)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App. · 3 citations in this opinion
State v. Crowell, 560 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo.App.1971).
green State v. Rolfe (1996)
Rule Authority · Vt.
See, e.g., Wester v. State, 528 P.2d 1179, 1181 (Alaska 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975) (statute that sets forth prerequisites for validity of chemical analysis specifies “the foundational facts necessary for the admissibility of a chemical analysis of breath”); State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971) (statute that sets forth when chemical testing is valid provides “statutory substitutes for a common law foundation for *12 the introduction of evid…
statute that sets forth when chemical testing is valid provides “statutory substitutes for a common law foundation for *12 the introduction of evidence of breath analyses for blood alcohol”
green State v. Johnson (1985)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo.App.1971).
green State v. Bush (1980)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
While it is incumbent on the State, where results of a breath test for blood alcohol are offered, to show that the method of testing has been approved by the Division of Health, State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo.App.1971), the regulations as such and the officer’s particular familiarity with them need not be proven in every case.
green State v. Crowell (1978)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
There was no need that the Rules for Determination of Blood Alcohol by Breath Analysis (13 CSR 50-140) be in evidence to enable the court to determine whether they were complied with because § 536.031-5 mandates that “[t]he courts of this state shall take judicial notice, without proof, of the contents of the code of state regulations.” The case of State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 [2] (Mo.App.1971), which is cited and relied on by defendant, is not contrary authority b…
green State v. Laws (1977)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 [2] (Mo.App.1971).
green State v. McGill (1974)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
In further support of his assignment of error, appellant cites State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo.App.1971) where the court found reversible error in receiving the results of a breathalyzer without proper foundation.
green State v. Deimeke (1973)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865, 867-868 [1-2] (Mo.App.1971); State v. Paul, 437 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Mo.App.1969).
green State v. Kummer (1987)
Cited · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. App.1971); cf. Attorney General opinion 33-84.
green State v. Lockamy (1983)
Cited · N.C. Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W. 2d 865 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971).
green State v. English (1978)
Cited (see also) · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: compare
Compare contrary results in State v. Sinclair, 474 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.1971), where there was no effort to show type of machine or manner of administration of the test, and State v. Deimeke, 500 S.W.2d 257 (Mo.App.1973), where the evidence showed the machine was inaccurate and malfunctioning. *765 Appellant charges the court erred (III) in receiving opinions of Troopers Swartz and Baker on defendant’s intoxication when they saw him at 7:00 p. m. and 7:20 p. m., and the breath…