16 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota 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. Bankengreen1 sentence2016See State v. Banken, 690 N.W.2d 367, 372 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding that test taken more than two hours after driving can be used as proof that a driver’s BAC was greater than 0.08 at the time of driving); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 4 (2010) (describing tests taken more than two hours after the alleged violation as “competent evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1996Timely test Appellant claims that McNichols’s misleading information violated his right to due process, because it prevented him from obtaining additional testing “within sufficient time for it to be effective in challenging the results of the test administered by McNi-chols.” See Schmidt, 486 N.W.2d at 476 (recognizing that officer’s misstatement about alternative testing may violate individual’s right to due process if statement may be “characterized as an attempt to misstate the law in order to hamper [an individual’s] right to obtain additional tests”; but holding misinformation in that ca | 1 | 1 |
Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1986See Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 383 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (remnant of a pinch of chewing tobacco); Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (chewing gum); see also Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (driver failed to show that low simulator reading “would unduly exaggerate the subject’s test results”). | 1 | 1 |
Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1986See Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 383 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (remnant of a pinch of chewing tobacco); Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (chewing gum); see also Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (driver failed to show that low simulator reading “would unduly exaggerate the subject’s test results”). | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Public Safety v. Habischgreen1 sentence1986See State, Department of Public Safety v. Habisch, 313 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitegreen1 sentence1984Id. at 190 , 282 N.W.2d at 200. 4. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1978In State v. Hitch, 113 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 161, 520 P.2d 974 , 977 (1974), the court said: “ * * * [Ojnce a showing has been made that it is reasonably possible that evidence with respect to the test could assist the defense, due process requires that it be produced or the results of the test suppressed, Unless it is shown that the items which were destroyed could not have been preserved without unreasonable effort.” (Italics supplied.) The court in State v. Wright, 87 Wash.2d 783, 791 , 557 P.2d 1, 6 (1976), observed: “While good faith loss may excuse noncompliance with the duties of preservation 1978In State v. Hitch, 113 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 161, 520 P.2d 974 , 977 (1974), the court said: “ * * * [Ojnce a showing has been made that it is reasonably possible that evidence with respect to the test could assist the defense, due process requires that it be produced or the results of the test suppressed, Unless it is shown that the items which were destroyed could not have been preserved without unreasonable effort.” (Italics supplied.) The court in State v. Wright, 87 Wash.2d 783, 791 , 557 P.2d 1, 6 (1976), observed: “While good faith loss may excuse noncompliance with the duties of preservation | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Stategreen1 sentence1978In Lee v. State, 511 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Alaska 1973), the Alaska Supreme Court squarely held that chemical analysis which ex *175 hausts the supply of the incriminating substance does not bar the prosecution from introducing the results of the analysis against the defendant at trial: “We find that due process of law does not require that the defendant be permitted independent expert examination of evidence in the possession of the prosecution before such evidence is introduced at the trial. * * * In those cases where expert analysis exhausts the substance there is clearly no error in the admissi | 1 | 1 |
Lefevre v. Stategreen2 sentences1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. 1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melin v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
2 sentences1987Me-lin, 384 N.W.2d at 477 . 1986Melin, 384 N.W.2d at 477 . | 2 | 1986–1987 |
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Kolander
green
2 sentences2009The rationale for this rule is that the “impact upon the minds of the jurors of a refusal to submit to something which they might well assume would effectively determine guilt or innocence ... might well be more devastating than a disclosure of the results of such test.” Id. at 222 , 52 N.W.2d at 465 . 2009The rationale for this rule is that the “impact upon the minds of the jurors of a refusal to submit to something which they might well assume would effectively determine guilt or innocence ... might well be more devastating than a disclosure of the results of such test.” Id. at 222 , 52 N.W.2d at 465 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Laducer
green
2 sentences2008In Laducer , this court held that “section 169A.41 does not prohibit a correctional facility from testing for intoxication prior to releasing an individual from custody and does not prohibit the results of such a test from being communicated to a peace officer.” Id. at 697 . 2008We further observed that “the result of a breath test administered by [a jailer] may be relied on by a licensed peace officer in forming probable cause to ... invoke the implied consent law.” Id. at 696 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Granger v. Adson
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1987Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Scheper v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1986Scheper v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 380 N.W.2d 222 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (undetected belching during observation). *477 The driver does not meet this burden by identifying a substance without showing that it raises the results of the test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1986See Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 383 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (remnant of a pinch of chewing tobacco); Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (chewing gum); see also Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (driver failed to show that low simulator reading “would unduly exaggerate the subject’s test results”). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Haynes v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1984Id. at 190 , 282 N.W.2d at 200. 4. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Branch v. Wilkinson
green
2 sentences1978On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Nebraska in Branch v. Wilkinson, 198 Neb. 649 , 256 N.W.2d 307 (1977), adopted a more reasoned approach in a similar case where an unconscious defendant gave no consent to the taking of his blood. 1978On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Nebraska in Branch v. Wilkinson, 198 Neb. 649 , 256 N.W.2d 307 (1977), adopted a more reasoned approach in a similar case where an unconscious defendant gave no consent to the taking of his blood. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Forte
green
1 sentence1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
State v. Pusch
green
2 sentences1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. 1952R. 611 (not error to refuse testimony of result of test made outside of court); LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416 , 8 N. W. (2d) 288 3 (holding that where defendant and prosecuting attorney had entered into a stipulation that the findings of test could be used by either defendant or the state on trial the results of such test were properly excluded when offered by defendant); State v. Pusch, 77 N. D. 860 , 46 N. W. (2d) 508 (not error to refuse to admit results offered by defendant); People v. Forte, 279 N. Y. 204 , 18 N. E. (2d) 31, 119 A. L. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
People v. Kenny
green
1 sentence1952The only recorded case to the contrary is People v. Kenny, 167 Misc. 51 , 3 N. Y. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Schweinfurter v. Schmahl
green
2 sentences1943Defendant asserts that Tankar was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take immediate steps to challenge defendant’s course of procedure after Tankar received notice from the referee and the industrial commission apprising it of the results of the hearing before the referee and later the appeal to the commission, and cites in support of its contention Schweinfurter v. Schmahl, 69 Minn. 418 , 72 N. W. 702 . 1943Defendant asserts that Tankar was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take immediate steps to challenge defendant’s course of procedure after Tankar received notice from the referee and the industrial commission apprising it of the results of the hearing before the referee and later the appeal to the commission, and cites in support of its contention Schweinfurter v. Schmahl, 69 Minn. 418 , 72 N. W. 702 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.