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.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lund v. Hjellegreen2 sentences2016Whether a person has cured an earlier refusal of a chemical test is determined by whether the person consented to the second request for a chemical test and whether the circumstances match the criteria outlined in Lund v. Hjelle: *693 [W]e hold that where, as here, one who is arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor first refuses to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood and later changes his mind and requests a chemical blood test, the subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the 2008Lund states: “[W]e hold that where, as here, one who is arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor first refuses to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood and later changes his mind and requests a chemical blood test, the subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal; when such a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate; when testing equipment or facilities are still readily available; whe | 2 | 8 |
Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, N.A.green1 sentence2015“Issues not briefed or argued are deemed abandoned.” Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, N. A., 449 N.W.2d 804, 807 (N.D.1989). [¶ 15] Roberts’ refusal of the chemical blood test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01, despite taking the onsite screening test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14, authorizes revocation under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lutz
green
1 sentence2020Id. at ¶ 15. [¶12] In State v. Lutz, we held the State was not required to produce the analyst who prepared the volatiles solution used in a chemical blood test. 2012 ND 156 , ¶ 14, 820 N.W.2d 111 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Obrigewitch v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2020Dep’t of Transp., 2002 ND 177, ¶ 14 , 653 N.W.2d 73 . [¶25] Steenstrup testified that he read Schwindt the implied consent advisory for a chemical blood test after he arrested Schwindt and that Schwindt initially consented to a blood test. 2020Dep’t of Transp., 2002 ND 177, ¶ 14 , 653 N.W.2d 73 . [¶25] Steenstrup testified that he read Schwindt the implied consent advisory for a chemical blood test after he arrested Schwindt and that Schwindt initially consented to a blood test. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lutz
green
1 sentence2020Id. at ¶ 15. [¶12] In State v. Lutz, we held the State was not required to produce the analyst who prepared the volatiles solution used in a chemical blood test. 2012 ND 156 , ¶ 14, 820 N.W.2d 111 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
1 sentence2016Id. [¶ 4] We vacate our opinion affirming Birchfield’s conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical blood test to the extent it is inconsistent with Birchfield v. North Dakota. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Houn v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2008Dep’t of Transp., 2000 ND 131, ¶ 18 , 613 N.W.2d 29 (driver failed in an attempt to cure a prior refusal with only twenty minutes left of the two-hour testing window). [¶ 15] Grosgebauer argues his statement of “I did not refuse” was sufficient to signify he had “change[d] his mind and requested] a chemical blood test.” Lund, at 557. 2008Dep’t of Transp., 2000 ND 131, ¶ 18 , 613 N.W.2d 29 (driver failed in an attempt to cure a prior refusal with only twenty minutes left of the two-hour testing window). [¶ 15] Grosgebauer argues his statement of “I did not refuse” was sufficient to signify he had “change[d] his mind and requested] a chemical blood test.” Lund, at 557. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Krehlik v. Moore
green
1 sentence2000Houn effectively argues law enforcement must honor an attempted cure if there is any possibility a chemical test could be completed within two hours. [¶ 13] In Lund, 224 N.W.2d at 557 , this Court held: [W]here, as here, one who is arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor first refuses to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood and later changes his mind and requests a chemical blood test, the subsequent consent to take the test cures the prior first refusal when the request to take the test is made within a reasonable time after t | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.