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.
15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parrish v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2020“The standard scoring system on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test gives one point for eye movement indicative of alcohol influence for each of the three tests for each eye.” Parrish v. Dir. of Revenue, 11 S.W.3d 652, 655 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). 2020“The highest possible score is six points, while a score of four or more points is an indication that a suspect is intoxicated.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Lord v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2019See Lord v. Dir. of Revenue, 427 S.W.3d 253, 258 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Gary Preston Browning, Jr.green1 sentence2015State v. Browning, 458 S.W.3d 418, 424-25 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (Witt, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Emmettgreen2 sentences2014Where a motion to suppress, has been filed by a criminal defendant, “[t]he State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be denied.” State v. Emmett, 346 S.W.3d 418, 420 (Mo.App. 2014Where a motion to suppress has been filed by a criminal defendant, "[t]he State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be denied." State v. Emmett, 346 S.W.3d 418, 420 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keethgreen1 sentence2012See State v. Keeth, 203 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rosegreen1 sentence2011State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 96 (Mo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parolegreen1 sentence2002The point relied on, however, fails to explain the “in that” portion — that is, why the legal reason supports his claim of reversible error. “ ‘Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review.’ ” Hall v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 10 S.W.3d 540, 544 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting Green v. Douglas, 977 S.W.2d 32 , 33 (Mo.App.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence2001Respondent counters that there was no error in the trial court’s decision because the officer did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest the Respondent for driving while intoxicated “in that the officer observed that Respondent had no impairment of motor skills such as his balance, walking, turning, coordination or dexterity, that his speech was coherent, that his pupils were normal and that his ability to follow instructions was good.” The standard of appellate review enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976), applies to review of a judgment upon trial de novo in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carsongreen1 sentence1998The State counters that this issue has been decided by this Court in State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo. banc 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkston
green
1 sentence2025The defendant failed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and refused to take any other field sobriety tests because he was “too drunk.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Royal
green
1 sentence2018"Intoxication may be proven by the defendant's behavior including: loss of balance, slurred speech, lack of body coordination, and impairment of motor reflexes." State v. Royal , 277 S.W.3d 837 , 840 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stolle v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2013In affirming the trial court’s determination that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition, the eastern district of our Court noted, “The mere fact that a person has consumed alcoholic beverages at some undetermined point in time cannot give rise to probable cause that the person is intoxicated.” Id. at 472 n. 1. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). .Among other things, the police report went into detail about the field sobriety tests conducted on Driver prior to his arrest, to-wit: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the leg stand test and the walk and turn test. 2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). .Among other things, the police report went into detail about the field sobriety tests conducted on Driver prior to his arrest, to-wit: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the leg stand test and the walk and turn test. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
York v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2007More importantly, the trooper “admitted at trial that she improperly administered all of these tests and that her failure to do so seriously compromised their validity.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Soest v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 620 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Green v. Douglas
green
1 sentence2002The point relied on, however, fails to explain the “in that” portion — that is, why the legal reason supports his claim of reversible error. “ ‘Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for this court to review.’ ” Hall v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 10 S.W.3d 540, 544 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting Green v. Douglas, 977 S.W.2d 32 , 33 (Mo.App.1998)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1998The State counters that this issue has been decided by this Court in State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo. banc 1997). | 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.
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.