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.
18 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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. Rolfegreen2 sentences2023Section 1203(d) of Title 23 provides that “a breath, saliva, or blood test . . . shall be analyzed in compliance with rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety” and that “[t]he analysis performed by the State shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or methods selected by the Department of Public Safety.” In State v. Rolfe, we interpreted this provision as establishing an admissibility standard for test results, recognizing that “valid” means 4 “admissible” in this context.2 166 Vt. 1, 11-12 , 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996); see also State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113, ¶ 1 2023Section 1203(d) of Title 23 provides that “a breath, saliva, or blood test . . . shall be analyzed in compliance with rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety” and that “[t]he analysis performed by the State shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or methods selected by the Department of Public Safety.” In State v. Rolfe, we interpreted this provision as establishing an admissibility standard for test results, recognizing that “valid” means 4 “admissible” in this context.2 166 Vt. 1, 11-12 , 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996); see also State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113, ¶ 1 | 3 | 4 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2012As the Daubert Court itself noted, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” 509 U.S. at 596 . 2010The Daubert Court itself noted that “[vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” 509 U.S. at 596 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Burnettgreen2 sentences2023Section 1203(d) of Title 23 provides that “a breath, saliva, or blood test . . . shall be analyzed in compliance with rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety” and that “[t]he analysis performed by the State shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or methods selected by the Department of Public Safety.” In State v. Rolfe, we interpreted this provision as establishing an admissibility standard for test results, recognizing that “valid” means 4 “admissible” in this context.2 166 Vt. 1, 11-12 , 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996); see also State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113, ¶ 1 2023Section 1203(d) of Title 23 provides that “a breath, saliva, or blood test . . . shall be analyzed in compliance with rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety” and that “[t]he analysis performed by the State shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or methods selected by the Department of Public Safety.” In State v. Rolfe, we interpreted this provision as establishing an admissibility standard for test results, recognizing that “valid” means 4 “admissible” in this context.2 166 Vt. 1, 11-12 , 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996); see also State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113, ¶ 1 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnettgreen1 sentence2023Section 1203(d) of Title 23 provides that “a breath, saliva, or blood test . . . shall be analyzed in compliance with rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety” and that “[t]he analysis performed by the State shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or methods selected by the Department of Public Safety.” In State v. Rolfe, we interpreted this provision as establishing an admissibility standard for test results, recognizing that “valid” means 4 “admissible” in this context.2 166 Vt. 1, 11-12 , 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996); see also State v. Burnett, 2013 VT 113, ¶ 1 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jesus Martinezgreen2 sentences2005The relevancy theory does not depend on the use of the guns in the drug sale. 2 See Martinez, 938 F.2d at 1083 (explaining that it is “basically immaterial to the admissibility inquiry” whether defendant has been charged with an offense involving use of the gun); State v. Smith, 1992 WL 61363 , No. CA-8715, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 16, 1992). 2005The relevancy theory does not depend on the use of the guns in the drug sale. [2] See Martinez, 938 F.2d at 1083 (explaining that it is "basically immaterial to the admissibility inquiry" whether defendant has *383 been charged with an offense involving use of the gun); State v. Smith, 1992 WL 61363 , at *3, No. CA-8715 (Ohio Ct.App. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2000See Johnson, 12 S.W.3d at 262-63 (hair comparison evidence admissible under earlier Frye standard remains admissible under Daubert ; court can take judicial notice of admissibility and burden shifts to opponent to show “such evidence is no longer deemed scientifically reliable”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2000The admissibility standard continues despite the intervening issuance of the Daubert decision, and the adoption of its holding in State v. Brooks, 162 Vt. 26, 30 , 643 A.2d 226, 229 (1993), and State v. Streich, 163 Vt. at 342, 658 A.2d at 46 . 2000The admissibility standard continues despite the intervening issuance of the Daubert decision, and the adoption of its holding in State v. Brooks, 162 Vt. 26, 30 , 643 A.2d 226, 229 (1993), and State v. Streich, 163 Vt. at 342, 658 A.2d at 46 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millsgreen2 sentences1993The court acknowledged that its ruling directly contradicted our holding in State v. Mills, 133 Vt. 15, 17 , 328 A.2d 410, 411-12 (1974) (even if presumption of test’s validity is not triggered, test results are admissible upon proper evidentiary foundation), but contended that Mills did not apply following the amendment of 23 V.S.A. § 1203, the statute governing the admissibility of the test. 1993The court acknowledged that its ruling directly contradicted our holding in State v. Mills, 133 Vt. 15, 17 , 328 A.2d 410, 411-12 (1974) (even if presumption of test’s validity is not triggered, test results are admissible upon proper evidentiary foundation), but contended that Mills did not apply following the amendment of 23 V.S.A. § 1203, the statute governing the admissibility of the test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Passinogreen2 sentences1993In a later case, this Court emphasized that this standard "cannot be met by inadmissible evidence." State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 381 , 577 A.2d 281, 284 (1990). *1137 The admissibility requirement imposed in Passino and Duff refers to admissibility of the evidence at trial. 1993In a later case, this Court emphasized that this standard "cannot be met by inadmissible evidence." State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 381 , 577 A.2d 281, 284 (1990). *1137 The admissibility requirement imposed in Passino and Duff refers to admissibility of the evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Walter Ward Dorrell, IIIgreen1 sentence1991See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26 , *469 410 A.2d 1000, 1001-02 (1979) (upholding trial court’s pretrial denial of defendant’s necessity defense because the offered evidence was insufficient); accord United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 378-79 , 498 A.2d 806, 809 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Capitologreen2 sentences1991See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26 , *469 410 A.2d 1000, 1001-02 (1979) (upholding trial court’s pretrial denial of defendant’s necessity defense because the offered evidence was insufficient); accord United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 378-79 , 498 A.2d 806, 809 (1985). 1991See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26 , *469 410 A.2d 1000, 1001-02 (1979) (upholding trial court’s pretrial denial of defendant’s necessity defense because the offered evidence was insufficient); accord United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 378-79 , 498 A.2d 806, 809 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warshowgreen2 sentences1991See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26 , *469 410 A.2d 1000, 1001-02 (1979) (upholding trial court’s pretrial denial of defendant’s necessity defense because the offered evidence was insufficient); accord United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 378-79 , 498 A.2d 806, 809 (1985). 1991See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26 , *469 410 A.2d 1000, 1001-02 (1979) (upholding trial court’s pretrial denial of defendant’s necessity defense because the offered evidence was insufficient); accord United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir. 1985); Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, 378-79 , 498 A.2d 806, 809 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McQuillan
green
2 sentences2015State v. McQuillan, 2003 VT 25, ¶¶ 6-9 , 175 Vt. 173 . 2015State v. McQuillan, 2003 VT 25, ¶¶ 6-9 , 175 Vt. 173 . | 2 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Burgess
green
2 sentences2012Thus, we have repeatedly stated that “Daubert presents an admissibility standard only.” State v. Burgess, 2010 VT 64, ¶ 12 , 188 Vt. 235 (quotation omitted). 2012Thus, we have repeatedly stated that “Daubert presents an admissibility standard only.” State v. Burgess, 2010 VT 64, ¶ 12 , 188 Vt. 235 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of Rockingham
green
2 sentences2010Thus, this Court has "emphasize[d]. . . that Daubert presents an admissibility standard only." USGen, 2004 VT 90, ¶ 19 , 177 Vt. 193 , 862 A.2d 269 . 2010Thus, this Court has “emphasize[d] . . . that Daubert presents an admissibility standard only.” USGen, 2004 VT 90, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence2003In establishing the admissibility requirement, the United States Supreme Court stated: “Rule 17(c) was not intended to provide an additional means of discovery.” Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 220 . ¶ 28. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Streich
green
1 sentence2000The admissibility standard continues despite the intervening issuance of the Daubert decision, and the adoption of its holding in State v. Brooks, 162 Vt. 26, 30 , 643 A.2d 226, 229 (1993), and State v. Streich, 163 Vt. at 342, 658 A.2d at 46 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Vandebogart
green
1 sentence1995Vandebogart, 616 A.2d at 495 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kimball v. New York Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1980The appellant’s citation of Kimball v. New York Life Insurance Co., 94 Vt. 100 , 108 A. 921 (1920), does not change this result since that case does not address the issue of authority necessary in this case to establish the admissibility of the waiver form as an admission. 1980The appellant’s citation of Kimball v. New York Life Insurance Co., 94 Vt. 100 , 108 A. 921 (1920), does not change this result since that case does not address the issue of authority necessary in this case to establish the admissibility of the waiver form as an admission. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.