34 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kneppergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer 2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer | 2 | 2 |
State v. Prosegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer 2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer | 2 | 2 |
Noble v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisiongreen2 sentences2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer 2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer | 2 | 2 |
State v. Westgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer 2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer | 2 | 2 |
State v. Baldersongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Roberts, 241 Or App 589, 596 , 251 P3d 232 , rev den, 350 Or 574 (2011); Balderson, 138 Or App at 535 n 1. 5 Defendant nonetheless contends that the statutory provisions authorizing the admission of Intoxilyzer test results cannot relieve the state of its burden under the state and federal constitutions to lay a proper foundation, which he contends should have included witness testimony explaining how the Intoxilyzer works, what it measures, and the rate of error. 1996The majority implies that so applying and enforcing OAR 257-30-020(1)(b) would encourage subterfuge and hamstring law enforcement: "[I]f a subject manages to regurgitate without the observing officer knowing it and later manages to convince the court that this occurred, the court would be required, as matter of law, to conclude that the rule was not complied with and that the results of the Intoxilyzer test were inadmissible." 138 Or.App. at 535, 910 P.2d at 1140 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Spencergreen2 sentences2001Id. at 74 . 2001Id. at 74 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2024In Clark, 286 Or at 35 , the defendant was convicted of DUII based in part on a breathalyzer test, which showed that his BAC was .13 percent. 2024In Clark, 286 Or at 35 , the defendant was convicted of DUII based in part on a breathalyzer test, which showed that his BAC was .13 percent. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences1993(Citations omitted.) Our holding in State v. Trenary, supra, is consistent with our decision in State v. Gardner, 52 Or App 663 , 629 P2d 412 , rev den 291 Or 419 (1981), in which we considered whether the right to consult with counsel under the Sixth Amendment included the right to have counsel monitor and be a witness to the administration of an Intoxilyzer test. 1993(Citations omitted.) Our holding in State v. Trenary, supra, is consistent with our decision in State v. Gardner, 52 Or App 663 , 629 P2d 412 , rev den 291 Or 419 (1981), in which we considered whether the right to consult with counsel under the Sixth Amendment included the right to have counsel monitor and be a witness to the administration of an Intoxilyzer test. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2018See State v. Miller , 289 Or. 2018See State v. Miller , 289 Or. | 1 | 1 |
State v. O'Keygreen1 sentence2012See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, 509 US 579 , 113 S Ct 2786 , 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); O’Key, 321 Or at 306 (discussing foundation for scientific evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, 509 US 579 , 113 S Ct 2786 , 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); O’Key, 321 Or at 306 (discussing foundation for scientific evidence). 2012See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, 509 US 579 , 113 S Ct 2786 , 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993); O’Key, 321 Or at 306 (discussing foundation for scientific evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Roberts, 241 Or App 589, 596 , 251 P3d 232 , rev den, 350 Or 574 (2011); Balderson, 138 Or App at 535 n 1. 5 Defendant nonetheless contends that the statutory provisions authorizing the admission of Intoxilyzer test results cannot relieve the state of its burden under the state and federal constitutions to lay a proper foundation, which he contends should have included witness testimony explaining how the Intoxilyzer works, what it measures, and the rate of error. 2012See State v. Roberts, 241 Or App 589, 596 , 251 P3d 232 , rev den, 350 Or 574 (2011); Balderson, 138 Or App at 535 n 1. 5 Defendant nonetheless contends that the statutory provisions authorizing the admission of Intoxilyzer test results cannot relieve the state of its burden under the state and federal constitutions to lay a proper foundation, which he contends should have included witness testimony explaining how the Intoxilyzer works, what it measures, and the rate of error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Roberts, 241 Or App 589, 596 , 251 P3d 232 , rev den, 350 Or 574 (2011); Balderson, 138 Or App at 535 n 1. 5 Defendant nonetheless contends that the statutory provisions authorizing the admission of Intoxilyzer test results cannot relieve the state of its burden under the state and federal constitutions to lay a proper foundation, which he contends should have included witness testimony explaining how the Intoxilyzer works, what it measures, and the rate of error. 2012See State v. Roberts, 241 Or App 589, 596 , 251 P3d 232 , rev den, 350 Or 574 (2011); Balderson, 138 Or App at 535 n 1. 5 Defendant nonetheless contends that the statutory provisions authorizing the admission of Intoxilyzer test results cannot relieve the state of its burden under the state and federal constitutions to lay a proper foundation, which he contends should have included witness testimony explaining how the Intoxilyzer works, what it measures, and the rate of error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penrodgreen2 sentences2001See generally Penrod, 133 Or App at 458 ; State v. Goss, 161 Or App 243, 248 , 984 P2d 938 (1999) (the state bears the burden of establishing that some limitation of a defendant’s right to a private consultation was necessary to preserve evidence or for security reasons and must justify the extent of the limitation under the particular circumstances). 2001See generally Penrod, 133 Or App at 458 ; State v. Goss, 161 Or App 243, 248 , 984 P2d 938 (1999) (the state bears the burden of establishing that some limitation of a defendant’s right to a private consultation was necessary to preserve evidence or for security reasons and must justify the extent of the limitation under the particular circumstances). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Owensgreen2 sentences2001Cf. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204 , 729 P2d 524 (1986) (“Probable cause under the Oregon Constitution has both a subjective and an objective component. 2001Cf. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204 , 729 P2d 524 (1986) (“Probable cause under the Oregon Constitution has both a subjective and an objective component. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Onuskanichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wardius v. Oregongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hilditchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gildroy v. Motor Vehicles Divisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wadegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Woodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lugo-Baez v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bowman
green
2 sentences2025Thus, when a witness lacks personal or specialized knowledge of facts but nevertheless testifies to the truth of those facts based on the statement of some- one else, that testimony contains a “statement” of the other person for hearsay purposes and, equally, for confrontation purposes under Article I, section 11.5 5 In Bowman, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between inad- missible hearsay and expert testimony under OEC 702 and 703, which allow an expert to testify to their own specialized knowledge and to opine based on (1) that specialized knowledge and (2) “hearsay and other ina 2025Thus, when a witness lacks personal or specialized knowledge of facts but nevertheless testifies to the truth of those facts based on the statement of some- one else, that testimony contains a “statement” of the other person for hearsay purposes and, equally, for confrontation purposes under Article I, section 11.5 5 In Bowman, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between inad- missible hearsay and expert testimony under OEC 702 and 703, which allow an expert to testify to their own specialized knowledge and to opine based on (1) that specialized knowledge and (2) “hearsay and other ina | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McCormack
green
2 sentences2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer 2025See State v. Prose, 308 Or App 167, 168 , 478 P3d 606 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 709 (2021) (accepting the state’s concession that, “although the pediatri- cian was entitled to rely on the results [of a urine test per- formed by someone else] to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant’s hearsay objection”); State v. 392 State v. Widerman McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 86-87 , 756 P2d 1281 , rev den, 306 Or 661 (1988) (reversing the trial court’s exclusion of testi- mony on confrontation grounds where the testifying officer | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Roe
neutral
2 sentences1990In State v. Roe, 95 Or App 477 , 770 P2d 69 , rev den 308 Or 142 (1989), the trial court suppressed the Intoxilyzer test result, because the officer did not write down the correct serial number of the machine on the checklist. 1990In State v. Roe, 95 Or App 477 , 770 P2d 69 , rev den 308 Or 142 (1989), the trial court suppressed the Intoxilyzer test result, because the officer did not write down the correct serial number of the machine on the checklist. | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Scharf
green
2 sentences1981Upon the authority of State v. Scharf, 288 Or 451 , 605 P2d 690 (1980), the trial court allowed defendant’s motion to suppress intoxilyzer evidence because defendant’s request to be allowed to consult with a lawyer before submitting to the intoxilyzer test had been denied. 1981Upon the authority of State v. Scharf, 288 Or 451 , 605 P2d 690 (1980), the trial court allowed defendant’s motion to suppress intoxilyzer evidence because defendant’s request to be allowed to consult with a lawyer before submitting to the intoxilyzer test had been denied. | 2 | 1981–1986 |
State v. Newton
green
2 sentences1986State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 799 , 636 P2d 393 (1981); State v. Scharf, 288 Or 451, 457-58 , 605 P2d 690 (1980); State v. Osburn, 13 Or App 92 , 508 P2d 837 (1973). 1986State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 799 , 636 P2d 393 (1981); State v. Scharf, 288 Or 451, 457-58 , 605 P2d 690 (1980); State v. Osburn, 13 Or App 92 , 508 P2d 837 (1973). | 2 | 1981–1986 |
State v. Dodge
neutral
1 sentence2019The printout, a “Breath Test Report,” looked approximately like this: Test %BAC Status Time Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:04 PDT Diagnostics OK PASS 22:05 Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:05 Subject Sample 0.074 OBTAINED 22:05 Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:06 Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:08 Cite as 301 Or App 1 (2019) 3 Subject Sample 0.066 OBTAINED 22:08 Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:09 Control Sample 0.084 PASS 22:09 Air Blank 0.000 PASS 22:10 * * EXPECTED VALUE FOR CONTROL: 0.085 % BAC * * TEST RESULT: 0.06 % BAC Defendant stipulated to the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer test but asked the court to “redact” digits other than | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Snuggerud
green
2 sentences2012After the defendant took the Intoxilyzer test, the arresting officer said, “If you’d wish to have a blood test — .” Id. 2012The defendant replied, “I’d rather have a blood test, that’s for sure.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. MacHuca
green
2 sentences2011Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the Intoxilyzer test, relying on State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 , 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I), rev’d, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010), to argue that the burden was “on the state to demonstrate that a warrant could not be obtained within a reasonable time to secure the evidence.” The trial court expressly relied on Machuca I in granting defendant’s motion to suppress “because it was done without a warrant and without exigent circumstances.” In State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca IT), the Oregon Supreme Court reversed 2011Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the Intoxilyzer test, relying on State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 , 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I), rev’d, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010), to argue that the burden was “on the state to demonstrate that a warrant could not be obtained within a reasonable time to secure the evidence.” The trial court expressly relied on Machuca I in granting defendant’s motion to suppress “because it was done without a warrant and without exigent circumstances.” In State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca IT), the Oregon Supreme Court reversed | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. MacHuca
green
2 sentences2011Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the Intoxilyzer test, relying on State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 , 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I), rev’d, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010), to argue that the burden was “on the state to demonstrate that a warrant could not be obtained within a reasonable time to secure the evidence.” The trial court expressly relied on Machuca I in granting defendant’s motion to suppress “because it was done without a warrant and without exigent circumstances.” In State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca IT), the Oregon Supreme Court reversed 2011Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the Intoxilyzer test, relying on State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 , 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I), rev’d, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010), to argue that the burden was “on the state to demonstrate that a warrant could not be obtained within a reasonable time to secure the evidence.” The trial court expressly relied on Machuca I in granting defendant’s motion to suppress “because it was done without a warrant and without exigent circumstances.” In State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 , 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca IT), the Oregon Supreme Court reversed | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Durbin
green
2 sentences2008He contends that Berry should have given him privacy both when he left the voice mail messages for his attorney and when he called his mother to ask her to refer him to another attorney. [1] He relies on a passage in State v. Durbin, 335 Or. 183, 194 , 63 P.3d 576 (2003), in which the Supreme Court stated that, to avoid violating the right to counsel, the police "might find it preferable to inform the driver of their intent to administer the breath test and then, if the driver requests counsel, to allow the driver a reasonable time in which to seek legal advice, in private, before beginning th 2008He contends that Berry should have given him privacy both when he left the voice mail messages for his attorney and when he called his mother to ask her to refer him to another attorney. [1] He relies on a passage in State v. Durbin, 335 Or. 183, 194 , 63 P.3d 576 (2003), in which the Supreme Court stated that, to avoid violating the right to counsel, the police "might find it preferable to inform the driver of their intent to administer the breath test and then, if the driver requests counsel, to allow the driver a reasonable time in which to seek legal advice, in private, before beginning th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The prosecutor asked, “And if somebody blew a .19 in the Intoxilyzer test, what would that indicate to you?” Osterholme answered, “It would be a presumption they were under the influence.” Defendant objected and moved to strike the testimony, arguing that it was irrelevant under Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689 , 696 P2d 513 (1985). 2005The prosecutor asked, “And if somebody blew a .19 in the Intoxilyzer test, what would that indicate to you?” Osterholme answered, “It would be a presumption they were under the influence.” Defendant objected and moved to strike the testimony, arguing that it was irrelevant under Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689 , 696 P2d 513 (1985). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Goss
green
2 sentences2001See generally Penrod, 133 Or App at 458 ; State v. Goss, 161 Or App 243, 248 , 984 P2d 938 (1999) (the state bears the burden of establishing that some limitation of a defendant’s right to a private consultation was necessary to preserve evidence or for security reasons and must justify the extent of the limitation under the particular circumstances). 2001See generally Penrod, 133 Or App at 458 ; State v. Goss, 161 Or App 243, 248 , 984 P2d 938 (1999) (the state bears the burden of establishing that some limitation of a defendant’s right to a private consultation was necessary to preserve evidence or for security reasons and must justify the extent of the limitation under the particular circumstances). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Durbin
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Durbin, 172 Or App 515 , 23 P3d 363 (2001), we considered whether a defendant was denied his Article I, section 11, right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to take an Intoxilyzer test where the defendant did not specifically ask that he be permitted a private consultation and a police officer remained present during the consultation. 2001In State v. Durbin, 172 Or App 515 , 23 P3d 363 (2001), we considered whether a defendant was denied his Article I, section 11, right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to take an Intoxilyzer test where the defendant did not specifically ask that he be permitted a private consultation and a police officer remained present during the consultation. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Tynon
green
2 sentences1999In State v. Tynon, 152 Or App 693 , 955 P2d 250 (1998), rev den 328 Or 365 (1999), we held that the fact that there were no express communications between the operator of an Intoxilyzer test and the observer of the defendant did not preclude a finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the operator had formed the belief required by the rule. 1999In State v. Tynon, 152 Or App 693 , 955 P2d 250 (1998), rev den 328 Or 365 (1999), we held that the fact that there were no express communications between the operator of an Intoxilyzer test and the observer of the defendant did not preclude a finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the operator had formed the belief required by the rule. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Rhode Island v. Innis green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Pfortmiller
neutral
2 sentences1998In the second assignment, the state argues that the court erred in concluding that the state failed to prove compliance with ORS 813.160-(l)(b)(C), which requires that trained technicians periodically certify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer equipment. 3 The certification documents the state submitted provided, in part, that the “undersigned trained technician * * * certifies, in accordance with ORS 813.160, that on the date indicated below, the [Intoxilyzer] equipment was tested.” We agree with the state that that documentation satisfied the requirements of the statute, as amplified in State v. Pf 1998In the second assignment, the state argues that the court erred in concluding that the state failed to prove compliance with ORS 813.160-(l)(b)(C), which requires that trained technicians periodically certify the accuracy of Intoxilyzer equipment. 3 The certification documents the state submitted provided, in part, that the “undersigned trained technician * * * certifies, in accordance with ORS 813.160, that on the date indicated below, the [Intoxilyzer] equipment was tested.” We agree with the state that that documentation satisfied the requirements of the statute, as amplified in State v. Pf | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Holloway green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Owens v. Motor Vehicles Division neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Sparklin green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State Ex Rel. Russell v. Jones green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| City of Roseburg v. Dykstra neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Bridewell green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Huck green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Lessar neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Ramsey neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Moore v. STATE, MOTOR VEHICLES DIV., ETC. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Morgan v. Motor Vehicles Division green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Medenbach green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Heer v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Weishar green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Osburn green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Wardrip neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.