8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murray City v. Hallgreen2 sentences1990See Hall, 663 P.2d at 1320 . 1988The only issue raised by appellant is whether there was sufficient evidence to admit the intoxilyzer test results when the machine had been working properly four days prior to his breath test, but no evidence had been presented showing that the machine had been calibrated and tested both immediately before and immediately after his breath test, a procedure known as “bookending.” In Murray City v. Hall, 663 P.2d 1314, 1320-22 (Utah 1983), the Utah Supreme Court stated that: Section 41-6-44.3 is merely a codification of the findings necessary to establish a proper foundation for the introduction | 2 | 2 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen2 sentences2019Sandy City v. Larson , 733 P.2d 137 , 140-41 (Utah 1987) ; see also South Dakota v. Neville , 459 U.S. 553 , 565, 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (noting that it is not fundamentally unfair for a state to use the refusal to take a test to determine BAC as evidence of guilt). 2019Sandy City v. Larson , 733 P.2d 137 , 140-41 (Utah 1987) ; see also South Dakota v. Neville , 459 U.S. 553 , 565, 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (noting that it is not fundamentally unfair for a state to use the refusal to take a test to determine BAC as evidence of guilt). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Charangreen2 sentences2012Compare State v. Charan, 132 Idaho 341 , 971 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (App.1998) (holding that even though a fif teen-minute observation period was not satisfied, a proper foundation for admission of Intoxilyzer 5000 results was met when an expert testified that the observation period is "not really necessary to ensure accurate test[ ]" results, but noting that whether foundational standards are satisfied must be determined on a case-by-case basis), with Michael P. Hlastala, The Slope Detector Does Not Always Detect the Presence of Mouth Alcohol, Champion Mag., March 2006, available at http:// www.n 2012Compare State v. Charan, 971 P.2d 1165 , 1167‐68 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998) (holding that even though a fifteen‐minute observation period was not satisfied, a proper foundation for admission of Intoxilyzer 5000 results was met when an expert testified that the observation period is “not really necessary to ensure accurate test[]” results, but noting that whether foundational standards are satisfied must be determined on a case‐by‐case basis), with Michael P. Hlastala, The Slope Detector Does Not Always Detect the Presence of Mouth Alcohol, Champion Mag., March 2006, available at http://www.nacdl.or | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bakergreen1 sentence2012See Baker, 355 P.2d at 809 . 20100077‐CA 7 ¶15 On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit Intoxilyzer test results because the fifteen‐minute observation period required by Vialpando was satisfied by the Arresting Officer’s continuous observation of Relyea for sixteen minutes. | 1 | 1 |
Iowa v. Tovargreen2 sentences2004See id. 2004See id. | 1 | 1 |
Kuntz v. State Highway Commissionergreen2 sentences1992See Kuntz v. State Highway Comm'r, 405 N.W.2d 285, 289 (N.D.1987) ("[T]he civil and criminal consequences [of a refusal to take an intoxilyzer test] are so intermingled that they are not perceptibly different to a lay person."). 1992See Kuntz v. State Highway Comm’r, 405 N.W.2d 285, 289 (N.D.1987) (“[T]he civil and criminal consequences [of a refusal to take an intoxilyzer test] are so intermingled that they are not perceptibly different to a lay person.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sandy City v. Larson
green
1 sentence2019Sandy City v. Larson , 733 P.2d 137 , 140-41 (Utah 1987) ; see also South Dakota v. Neville , 459 U.S. 553 , 565, 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (noting that it is not fundamentally unfair for a state to use the refusal to take a test to determine BAC as evidence of guilt). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2012A trial court’s determination that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of evidence will not be overturned “unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶16 In the alternative, the State argues that the trial court erred in applying Vialpando’s fifteen‐minute observation requirement to Intoxilyzer test results because technological changes obviate the need for the requirement. “[W]e consider the trial court’s interpretation of binding case law as presenting a question of law and review the trial court’s interpretation of that 2012A trial court’s determination that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of evidence will not be overturned “unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶16 In the alternative, the State argues that the trial court erred in applying Vialpando’s fifteen‐minute observation requirement to Intoxilyzer test results because technological changes obviate the need for the requirement. “[W]e consider the trial court’s interpretation of binding case law as presenting a question of law and review the trial court’s interpretation of that | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Jacobsen v. Jacobsen
green
2 sentences2012A trial court's determination that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of evidence will not be overturned "unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion." Id. 118 (internal quotation marks omitted). 116 In the alternative, the State argues that the trial court erred in applying Vialpando's fifteen-minute observation requirement to Intoxilyzer test results because technological changes obviate the need for the requirement. "[Wle consider the trial court's interpretation of binding case law as presenting a question of law and review the trial court's interpretation of that 2012A trial court’s determination that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of evidence will not be overturned “unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶16 In the alternative, the State argues that the trial court erred in applying Vialpando’s fifteen‐minute observation requirement to Intoxilyzer test results because technological changes obviate the need for the requirement. “[W]e consider the trial court’s interpretation of binding case law as presenting a question of law and review the trial court’s interpretation of that | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Tripp
green
2 sentences2010Tripp, 2008 UT App 388 , ¶ 22 n. 9, 197 P.3d 99 . 2010Tripp, 2008 UT App 388 , ¶ 22 n. 9, 197 P.3d 99 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Bugger
green
2 sentences1988Upon conclusion of the prosecution’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal *1280 based on the prosecution’s failure to establish “actual physical control” under State v. Bugger, 25 Utah 2d 404 , 483 P.2d 442 (1971). 1988Upon conclusion of the prosecution’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal *1280 based on the prosecution’s failure to establish “actual physical control” under State v. Bugger, 25 Utah 2d 404 , 483 P.2d 442 (1971). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.