Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2002Rogers, 947 S.W.2d at 477 . 2001Rogers v. Director of Revenue, 947 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Mo.App.1997). | 2 | 3 |
Threlkeld v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences1999Threlkeld v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Mo.App. 1999Threlkeld v. Director of Revenue, 977 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Mo.App.1998). | 2 | 2 |
Hill v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE STATE OF MO.green2 sentences2016Id. 2016As noted above, to lay a proper foundation for the introduction of a BAC test result, the Director must show that the breath analyzer test was performed (1) by following the approved techniques and methods of DHSS, (2) by an operator holding a valid permit, and (3) using equipment and devices' approved by DHSS; Hill, 985 S.W.2d at 827 . | 1 | 3 |
Tate v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences1999Tate v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Mo.App.1998). 1998Tate, 982 S.W.2d at 727 ; Trumble , — S.W.2d at -, slip op. at 4-5. | 1 | 2 |
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Mack, 903 S.W.2d 623, 630 (Mo. App. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Anders, 975 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. App. 1998) (holding that testimony from the officer who administered the breath analyzer test that the RFI detector never indicated any interference with the appellant’s test constituted “clear evidence” that the test was not compromised by the use of cell phones while the test was being administered). 2021See State v. Mack, 903 S.W.2d 623, 630 (Mo. App. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Anders, 975 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. App. 1998) (holding that testimony from the officer who administered the breath analyzer test that the RFI detector never indicated any interference with the appellant’s test constituted “clear evidence” that the test was not compromised by the use of cell phones while the test was being administered). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Mack, 903 S.W.2d 623, 630 (Mo. App. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Anders, 975 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. App. 1998) (holding that testimony from the officer who administered the breath analyzer test that the RFI detector never indicated any interference with the appellant’s test constituted “clear evidence” that the test was not compromised by the use of cell phones while the test was being administered). 2021See State v. Mack, 903 S.W.2d 623, 630 (Mo. App. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Anders, 975 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. App. 1998) (holding that testimony from the officer who administered the breath analyzer test that the RFI detector never indicated any interference with the appellant’s test constituted “clear evidence” that the test was not compromised by the use of cell phones while the test was being administered). | 1 | 1 |
Krieger v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2002Id. at 480; see also Krieger v. Dir. of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 697, 701 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Wisdom v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2000This provision thus requires that, “[t]o lay a proper foundation for the admission of the breath analyzer test results, Director must demonstrate the test was performed: (1) by following the approved methods and techniques of the Department of Health; (2) by a person holding a valid permit; and (3) on equipment and devices approved by the Department of Health.” Wisdom v. Director of Revenue, 988 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Kafoury v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1999Kafoury , at 190. | 1 | 1 |
Brussel v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1998Brussel v. Director of Revenue, 962 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
DeClue v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1997Green points to Declue v. Director of Revenue, 945 S.W.2d 684, 685-686 (Mo.App.1997) for the proposition that without evidence that an “approved standard simulator solution” was utilized to maintain the breath analyzer, no foundation exists for the admission of the breath analyzer test results. | 1 | 1 |
Mullins v. Director of Revenue State of Missourigreen2 sentences1997Director, in her reply brief, responds to Green’s argument by citing Mullins v. Director of Revenue, 946 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.1997) for the proposition that testimony by Trooper Rawson that he used a certified solution was sufficient evidence that an “approved standard simulator solution” was used. 19 CSR 25-30.050(4) states the following: “Approved standard simulator solutions used to verify and calibrate breath analyzers shall be certified by the manufacturer of that solution, and evidence of such certification shall accompany the maintenance report.” In Mullins , the Eastern District fou 1997Director, in her reply brief, responds to Green’s argument by citing Mullins v. Director of Revenue, 946 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.App.1997) for the proposition that testimony by Trooper Rawson that he used a certified solution was sufficient evidence that an “approved standard simulator solution” was used. 19 CSR 25-30.050(4) states the following: “Approved standard simulator solutions used to verify and calibrate breath analyzers shall be certified by the manufacturer of that solution, and evidence of such certification shall accompany the maintenance report.” In Mullins , the Eastern District fou | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matthew S. Bartholomew v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 4 | 2016–2016 |
Philip Lorenzo Gallagher v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018"To establish that a driver's BAC was over the legal limit, the Director may introduce evidence of the results of a breath analyzer test." Id. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Thomas Michael Prade v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 633 . 2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Potts v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 231 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hartmann v. DJS/CMS, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Bartholomew , 462 S.W.3d at 470 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kennedy v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2004Kennedy, 73 S.W.3d at 86-87 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hurley v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences1999The Eastern District of this court reversed, holding that the "Director met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, driver failed to rebut this with evidence that the maintenance report was not reliable and therefore we conclude the results of the breath analyzer test should have been admitted." Id. at 697 . 1999The Eastern District of this court reversed, holding that the “Director met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, driver failed to rebut this with evidence that the maintenance report was not reliable and therefore we conclude the results of the breath analyzer test should have been admitted.” Id. at 697 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Green v. Director of Revenue State of Mo.
green
1 sentence1998On appeal to this Court, the Director maintains in its sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in setting aside the suspension of Curtis’ driving privileges because the second breath analyzer test administered to Curtis was valid in that the Department of Health’s regulations on breath analyzer tests do not require the administering officer to observe an additional 15-minute waiting period before administering a second test if the first test detects the presence of mouth alcohol. 4 We note that Missouri Department of Health regulation 19 CSR 30.060, Form # 7, which the Director int | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Spies v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1998Spies, 854 S.W.2d at 68 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.