15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kummergreen2 sentences1998See State v. Kummer, 741 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App. 1997See State v. Kummer, 741 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2020The admissibility inquiry is flexible and “other factors may also be relevant.” Wright, 562 S.W.3d at 318 . “[N]o single factor is necessarily dispositive of the reliability of a particular expert’s testimony.” Id. 2020The admissibility inquiry is flexible and “other factors may also be relevant.” Wright, 562 S.W.3d at 318 . “[N]o single factor is necessarily dispositive of the reliability of a particular expert’s testimony.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Scott Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Companygreen1 sentence2019Id. at 319 (applying the three-part admissibility test of Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, 754 F.3d 557, 561 (8th Cir. 2014)).13 Employing the three-part admissibility test described in Wright, the City's essential argument is that Jones's expert witnesses -- Kathleen Kline ("Kline") and Anne Wedow ("Wedow") -- were not qualified and their testimony was not reliable. | 1 | 1 |
Little v. Vincentgreen1 sentence2012See Little v. Vincent, 248 S.W.3d 714, 718-19 (Mo.App.2008); Rose, 86 S.W.3d at 98-99 . | 1 | 1 |
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonaghgreen1 sentence2009See State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 123 S.W.3d at 149 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence1992See State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d at 603-04 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeClue v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences1999“Because [19 CSR 25-30.051] merely relates to the admissibility of the test results into evidence, we conclude that it is procedural and subject to retrospective application.” Id. 1998Id. at 686 . | 3 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Rose
green
1 sentence2012See Little v. Vincent, 248 S.W.3d 714, 718-19 (Mo.App.2008); Rose, 86 S.W.3d at 98-99 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Reed v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2011Section 577.037.4 limits the admissibility test results by providing that “in order to give rise to the presumption or to have the effect provided in subsection 1,” a chemical analysis “shall have been performed as provided in sections 577.020 to 577.041....” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Purlee
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Coyle v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2003In Coyle , the trial court sustained an objection to the admission of the driver’s test results because of an unauthorized software change made to the breathalyzer machine. 88 S.W.3d at 889 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Anderson v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 903 . 1999Id. at 903 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Harper v. Director of Revenue
neutral
1 sentence1999Based on Harper, supra we find the trial court erroneously applied the version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on the date of arrest, and erroneously concluded the certificate of analysis was defective and deficient. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences1999Sellenriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340-41 . 1999Sell enriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340-41 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Castro
green
2 sentences1991Id., 545 N.Y.S.2d at 999 . 1991Id., 545 N.Y.S.2d at 999 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1987On appeal the State contends that the court erred in sustaining the motion because (1) “the provisions of the Missouri Implied Consent Law [§§ 577.020-577.041 R.S.Mo,, 1986] do not apply since the State is not relying on the implied consent of the defendant for the admissibility of the test results,” but rather relies upon the separate and distinct theories of “express consent” and “search incident to a lawful arrest as enunciated in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)” and (2) at the time the results of the blood test were offered against respondent a 1987On appeal the State contends that the court erred in sustaining the motion because (1) “the provisions of the Missouri Implied Consent Law [§§ 577.020-577.041 R.S.Mo,, 1986] do not apply since the State is not relying on the implied consent of the defendant for the admissibility of the test results,” but rather relies upon the separate and distinct theories of “express consent” and “search incident to a lawful arrest as enunciated in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)” and (2) at the time the results of the blood test were offered against respondent a | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Peters
green
1 sentence1987Division Five Holds: The trial court erred in sustaining the motion to suppress because (1) State v. Peters, 729 S.W.2d 243 (Mo.App.1987), relied upon by the trial court is not controlling in this proceeding; and (2) the fact that there were no regulations promulgated by the Department of Health relating to an approved method of testing at the time of the fatal vehicular accident does not invalidate the admissibility of such test results since the test was “approved” at the time that such results were offered in evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress and thus is not a retrospective | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.