field sobriety test in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Rosegreen moctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide	2	2
Brewer v. Zieglergreen nd · 2007 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide	2	2
Emerson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide	2	2
Schmidt v. Stategreen indctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2009App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); Wilson v. State, 124 Md.	2	2
State v. Edgargreen kan · 2013 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2015But, as we recognized in Edgar , tire driver s successful performance on a field sobriety test does not necessarily dispel an officer s reasonable suspicion. 296 Kan. at 524 (citing several cases holding reasonable suspicion was not dispelled by driver s perfect or adequate performance on sobriety testing); see also Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 513-15 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010) (defendant’s positive facts did not negate other facts in determining whetlier the trooper should have requested the PBT or evidentiaiy breath test). 2015But, as we recognized in Edgar, the driver's successful performance on a field sobriety test does not necessarily dispel an officer's reasonable suspicion. 296 Kan. at 524 (citing several cases holding reasonable suspicion was not dispelled by driver's perfect or adequate performance on sobriety testing); see also Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 513-15 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010) (defendant's positive facts did not negate other facts in determining whether the trooper should have requested the PBT or evidentiary breath test).	1	2
Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenuegreen kan · 2010 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2020 2 sentences 2015But, as we recognized in Edgar , tire driver s successful performance on a field sobriety test does not necessarily dispel an officer s reasonable suspicion. 296 Kan. at 524 (citing several cases holding reasonable suspicion was not dispelled by driver s perfect or adequate performance on sobriety testing); see also Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 513-15 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010) (defendant’s positive facts did not negate other facts in determining whetlier the trooper should have requested the PBT or evidentiaiy breath test). 2015But, as we recognized in Edgar , tire driver s successful performance on a field sobriety test does not necessarily dispel an officer s reasonable suspicion. 296 Kan. at 524 (citing several cases holding reasonable suspicion was not dispelled by driver s perfect or adequate performance on sobriety testing); see also Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 513-15 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010) (defendant’s positive facts did not negate other facts in determining whetlier the trooper should have requested the PBT or evidentiaiy breath test).	1	2
State v. Sullivangreen sc · 1993 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson	1	2
Casper v. Kansas Dept. of Revenuegreen kan · 2019 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Casper v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 309 Kan. 1211 , 442 P.3d 1038 (2019) (upholding the district court's determination that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI when the court disagreed with the arresting officer's field sobriety test results).	1	1
In re Shrivergreen kan · 2013 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513, 524 , 294 P.3d 251 (2013); Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 291 Kan. 510, 515 , 242 P.3d 1179 (2010).	1	1
State v. Murphygreen iowa · 1990 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap	1	1
State v. Murraygreen kan · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 535 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (articulating the harmless error standard). 2009See State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 535 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (articulating the harmless error standard).	1	1
State v. Reidgreen kan · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See Reid, 286 Kan. at 505-09 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Wilson v. State green mdctspecapp · 1999 2 sentences 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2009App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); Wilson v. State, 124 Md.	2	2009–2010
State v. Dahood green nh · 2002 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson	2	2009–2010
People v. Rose green illappct · 1994 2 sentences 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2009App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); Wilson v. State, 124 Md.	2	2009–2010
Mount v. El Dorado County Superior Court green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2009App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion that Wilson was at or above .10 BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of a specific BAC level); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (admitting evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evide	2	2009–2010
State v. Baue green neb · 2000 2 sentences 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson 2010App. 543, 553 , 723 A.2d 494 (1999) (permitting testimony regarding HGN test results but finding error when testimony included an opinion of defendant’s BAC); State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 100 (Mo. App. 2002) (allowing evidence of HGN test results as circumstantial evidence of intoxication but not as evidence of specific BAC); State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968, 985-87 , 607 N.W.2d 191 (2000) (same); State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723, 734 , 814 A.2d 159 (2002) (same); Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391, 400 (N.D. 2007) (same); State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 315-16 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (same); Emerson	2	2009–2010
State v. Campoy green arizctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2010Campoy, 214 Ariz. at 135 .	1	2010–2010
State v. Shadden green kanctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2010Shadden, 40 Kan.	1	2010–2010
State v. Nagel green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap 2010App. 3d 174, 181 , 643 N.E.2d 865 (1994) (distinguishing between the admission of field sobriety test results and preliminary breath test results because the breath test registered body chemistry rather than recording behavioral characteristics); Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 946 (Ind. App. 2004) (suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting a statement from State v. Nagel, 30 Ohio Ap	1	2010–2010
City of Dodge City v. Ingram green kanctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2009App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that Shaw failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight clues); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan.	1	2009–2009
City of Dodge City v. Norton green kan · 1997 2 sentences 2009He also failed a breath test.”); City of Dodge City v. Norton, 262 Kan. 199, 204-05 , 936 P.2d 1356 (1997) (discussing the validity of a field sobriety test as a clue to physical impairment); State v. Shaw, 37 Kan. 2009He also failed a breath test.”); City of Dodge City v. Norton, 262 Kan. 199, 204-05 , 936 P.2d 1356 (1997) (discussing the validity of a field sobriety test as a clue to physical impairment); State v. Shaw, 37 Kan.	1	2009–2009
State v. Shaw green kanctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2009He also failed a breath test.”); City of Dodge City v. Norton, 262 Kan. 199, 204-05 , 936 P.2d 1356 (1997) (discussing the validity of a field sobriety test as a clue to physical impairment); State v. Shaw, 37 Kan. 2009App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that Shaw failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight clues); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan.	1	2009–2009
State v. Larson green kanctapp · 1987 1 sentence 1997App. 2d 198 , 737 P.2d 880 (1987), considered a defendant’s argument that ihe results of a field sobriety test should be disregarded because of his physical impairment.	1	1997–1997
State v. Boone green kan · 1976 2 sentences 1987Reasonable suspicion “Under appropriate circumstances, a police officer may approach and stop a person ... for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” State v. Boone, 220 Kan. 758 , Syl. ¶ 3, 556 P.2d 864 (1976). 1987Reasonable suspicion “Under appropriate circumstances, a police officer may approach and stop a person ... for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” State v. Boone, 220 Kan. 758 , Syl. ¶ 3, 556 P.2d 864 (1976).	1	1987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 8-1567 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 203 (1990–2026) PA 110 (1979–2026) TX 104 (1985–2026) IL 50 (1990–2026) LA 43 (1981–2015) HI 39 (1984–2025) GA 35 (1988–2022) OR 29 (1981–2022) CA 28 (1968–2025) NY 27 (1984–2026) WI 24 (1994–2025) MA 23 (1984–2024) FL 23 (1982–2023) WA 20 (1991–2026) IN 14 (1988–2020) NM 14 (1987–2024) MO 13 (1999–2025) VA 11 (1991–2022) NJ 10 (2005–2025) ME 10 (1995–2023) IA 10 (1978–2024) SC 9 (1996–2022) UT 9 (1987–2021) MS 8 (2003–2024) KS 8 (1987–2024) TN 8 (1988–2016) MD 8 (1990–2025) MT 8 (1984–2021) KY 8 (2004–2024) NC 7 (2005–2021) WV 7 (1997–2023) MN 7 (2001–2026) MI 6 (2002–2024) AZ 5 (1987–2026) ID 5 (1995–2021) VT 5 (1988–2023) NV 5 (1997–2020) AL 4 (1989–2001) WY 4 (1993–2019) CT 4 (1997–2002) DE 3 (2016–2025) ND 3 (1986–2005) VI 2 (2001–2017) SD 2 (1985–1989) AR 2 (2015–2026) NH 2 (2021–2024) DC 2 (2014–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check