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.
10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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. Mazegreen2 sentences2021See State v. Maze, 16 Kan. 2006Citing K.S.A. 8-1013(f)(2) and K.S.A. 8-1006(a), the Maze court held that readings obtained from a partial alcohol concentration test on a breath testing machine are statutorily admissible. 16 Kan. | 3 | 5 |
Hansen v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1994"Although the laws against driving while intoxicated are interpreted broadly in the public interest, public policy also encourages people who have been drinking to find another person to drive, [citation omitted] . . . ‘[T]he real purpose of the [implied consent law] is to deter individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles, except as passengers.’ ” Hansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 478 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Minn. App. 1991) (Emphasis in original.) A drunken passenger who has designated a driver but refuses an alcohol concentration test should not re | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pendleton
green
2 sentences2000Further, our legislature has expressly provided in K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(1) that an alcohol concentration test administered two hours or more after a defendant operated or attempted to operate a vehicle may be competent evidence to support a conviction under that subsection.” State v. Pendleton, 18 Kan. 1998K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1567 reads as follows: “(a) No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while: “(1) The alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath as shown by any competent evidence, including other competent evidence, as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of K.S.A. 8-1013, and amendments thereto, is .08 or more.” The term “other competent evidence” is defined in K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1013(f) as follows: “ ‘Other competent evidence’ includes: (1) Alcohol concentration tests obtained from samples taken two hours or more after the operation or | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. May
green
1 sentence2012That definition of other competent evidence includes, under subsection (2), “readings obtained from a partial alcohol concentration test on a breath testing machine.” Accordingly, the dissent opined that the district court erred in refusing to *868 admit the deficient sample test result as “other competent evidence.” May, 2009 WL 5206248, at *11 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Williamson v. City of Hays
green
1 sentence2004“When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. [Citation omitted.]” Williamson, 275 Kan. at 305 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.