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.
9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Elwellgreen2 sentences2018The "precautions are intended to ensure that the results of the breathalyzer test if given are accurate and reliable as evidence ... and the precautions are pointless when the test is not given." State v. Elwell , 396 S.C. 330 , 721 S.E.2d 451 , 453 (S.C. 2018The "precautions are intended to ensure that the results of the breathalyzer test if given are accurate and reliable as evidence ... and the precautions are pointless when the test is not given." State v. Elwell , 396 S.C. 330 , 721 S.E.2d 451 , 453 (S.C. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Connersgreen2 sentences1974As was said in State v. Conners, 125 N.J.Super. 500 , 311 A.2d 764, 767 (1973): “Because the statute creates a presumption from the breathalyzer readings alone, it is imperative that the machine be in accurate working order.” At the close of all the testimony in this case, the trial judge stated: “Well, I frankly do not understand what happened here, because the test would indicate that he was not only under the influence, but very much so. 1974As was said in State v. Conners, 125 N.J.Super. 500 , 311 A.2d 764, 767 (1973): “Because the statute creates a presumption from the breathalyzer readings alone, it is imperative that the machine be in accurate working order.” At the close of all the testimony in this case, the trial judge stated: “Well, I frankly do not understand what happened here, because the test would indicate that he was not only under the influence, but very much so. | 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. Salhus
green
2 sentences1976In State v. Ghylin, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 869 , this court stated: “We further hold, as we did in State v. Salhus, supra [ 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D.1974)], that the foundation for the introduction in evidence of the results of the Breathalyzer test was insufficient. 1976In State v. Ghylin, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 869 , this court stated: “We further hold, as we did in State v. Salhus, supra [ 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D.1974)], that the foundation for the introduction in evidence of the results of the Breathalyzer test was insufficient. | 2 | 1974–1976 |
State v. Puhr
green
2 sentences1985State v. Puhr, 316 N.W.2d 75 (N.D.1982). 1985State v. Puhr, 316 N.W.2d 75 (N.D.1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984State v. Lawson, 321 N.W.2d 514 (N.D.1982); State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences1984The United States Supreme Court recently held, in California v. Trombetta, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis (Omicron Intoxilyzer) tests at trial. 1984The United States Supreme Court recently held, in California v. Trombetta, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis (Omicron Intoxilyzer) tests at trial. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Larson
green
1 sentence1984The Superior Court of New Jersey in Bryan, supra, [concluded] ... that the statute afforded the defendant due process by permitting her to obtain her own breath samples .... * * * * * * “We conclude, as did the New Jersey Superior Court with regard to the New Jersey statute, that Section 39-20-02, N.D.C.C., which permits a person to obtain his own breath sample, affords him a fair and reasonable opportunity to scrutinize and verify or impeach the results of the Breathalyzer test administered by the law enforcement officer and, thereby, comports with the due process requirements of the Constitu | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Lawson
green
1 sentence1984State v. Lawson, 321 N.W.2d 514 (N.D.1982); State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Ghylin
green
1 sentence1976In State v. Ghylin, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 869 , this court stated: “We further hold, as we did in State v. Salhus, supra [ 220 N.W.2d 852 (N.D.1974)], that the foundation for the introduction in evidence of the results of the Breathalyzer test was insufficient. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.