10 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mhoon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134 , 251 S.W.3d 244 (2007) (holding that where the appellant consented to a breathalyzer test under the implied consent statute, Ark. 2015See also Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134 , 251 S.W.3d 244 (2007) (holding that where the appellant consented to a breathalyzer test under the implied consent statute, Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Stone v. State, 348 Ark. 661 , 662 , 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002). 2004See, e.g., Stone v. State, 348 Ark. 661 , 662 , 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See also Roberts v. State, 287 Ark. 451 , 701 S.W.2d 112 (1985), where the court affirmed a DWI conviction because the appellant was found in actual physical control of a car while he was intoxicated, but his conviction for refusing to take a blood alcohol test was reversed because there was no implied consent, under the statutory law of this state, to take the test. 1994See also Roberts v. State, 287 Ark. 451 , 701 S.W.2d 112 (1985), where the court affirmed a DWI conviction because the appellant was found in actual physical control of a car while he was intoxicated, but his conviction for refusing to take a blood alcohol test was reversed because there was no implied consent, under the statutory law of this state, to take the test. | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen1 sentence1989We now address a question left open in Schmerber, supra, and hold that the admission into evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to such a test likewise does not offend the right against self-incrimination. 459 U.S. at 554 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Whaley v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See, e.g., Whaley v. State, 11 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2012The United States Supreme Court has held that the compulsory administration of a blood test is subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and has further held that “subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires the production of alveolar |sor ‘deep lung 1 breath for chemical analysis, implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Sehmerber, should also be deemed a search.” Skinner v. Ry. 2012The United States Supreme Court has held that the compulsory administration of a blood test is subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and has further held that “subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires the production of alveolar |sor ‘deep lung 1 breath for chemical analysis, implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Sehmerber, should also be deemed a search.” Skinner v. Ry. | 4 | 1989–2012 |
Mercer v. State
green
2 sentences2004Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld, on the basis of implied consent, the denial of a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, see Mercer v. State, 256 Ark. 814 , 510 S.W.2d 539 (1974), the court has more consistently held that mere acquiescence to a search does not constitute valid consent under the Fourth Amendment. 2004Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld, on the basis of implied consent, the denial of a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, see Mercer v. State, 256 Ark. 814 , 510 S.W.2d 539 (1974), the court has more consistently held that mere acquiescence to a search does not constitute valid consent under the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stivers v. State
green
2 sentences2003The blood-alcohol test result in evidence here distinguishes this case from Stivers v. State, 64 Ark.App. 113 , 978 *184 S.W.2d 749 (1998), where we found the evidence to be insufficient where the State's proof showed only that the appellant smelled of alcohol and was involved in a one-vehicle accident. 2003The blood-alcohol test result in evidence here distinguishes this case from Stivers v. State, 64 Ark. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gober v. State
green
2 sentences1992We agree with the State’s argument that Gober v. State, 22 Ark. 1992App. 121 , 736 S.W.2d 18 (1987), was wrongly decided in this particular, and we overrule Gober to the extent that it holds a DWI conviction is a prerequisite to a conviction for refusing a blood alcohol test pursuant to Ark. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ragsdale v. State
green
2 sentences1989Based on that statute, we held in Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296 , 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968), that when a blood alcohol test was ordered by a physician, the result of the test was inadmissible. 1989Based on that statute, we held in Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296 , 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968), that when a blood alcohol test was ordered by a physician, the result of the test was inadmissible. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Freeman v. State
green
2 sentences1989In Freeman v. State, 258 Ark. 617 , 527 S.W.2d 909 (1975), a doctor’s testimony regarding the removal of a bullet from Freeman’s abdomen was held inadmissible. 1989In Freeman v. State, 258 Ark. 617 , 527 S.W.2d 909 (1975), a doctor’s testimony regarding the removal of a bullet from Freeman’s abdomen was held inadmissible. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.