7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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. Albrightgreen2 sentences2004As the State acknowledges, in State v. Albright, 632 N.E.2d 725, 725 (Ind.1994), our supreme court, in addressing a former version of the rule, stated: 260 IAC 1.1-4-8(1) requires a twenty[-Iminute waiting period prior to the administration of the Intoxilyzer test, during which time the subject may not have had any foreign substance in his mouth. 2004As the State acknowledges, in State v. Albright, 632 N.E.2d 725, 725 (Ind.1994), our supreme court, in addressing a former version of the rule, stated: 260 IAC 1.1-4-8(1) requires a twenty[-]minute waiting period prior to the administration of the Intoxilyzer test, during which time the subject may not have had any foreign substance in his mouth. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1993Indiana Code § 35-38-4-2 specifies those instances in which the state may appeal, including: “(5) From an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution.” Although the State contends without argument that the suppression of the Intoxilyzer test results precludes further prosecution, we will “accept the State’s assertion in taking such an appeal that the ultimate effect of the order of suppression is to prevent further prosecution.” State v. Williams (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 582, 585 (Garrard, J., concurring). 1993Indiana Code § 35-38-4-2 specifies those instances in which the state may appeal, including: “(5) From an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution.” Although the State contends without argument that the suppression of the Intoxilyzer test results precludes further prosecution, we will “accept the State’s assertion in taking such an appeal that the ultimate effect of the order of suppression is to prevent further prosecution.” State v. Williams (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 582, 585 (Garrard, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Regan v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Regan v. State (1992), Ind.App., 590 N.E.2d 640, 649 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Albright
neutral
2 sentences1994In an opinion reported at 622 N.E.2d 995 , the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting appellee's motion to suppress the results of an Intoxilyzer test. 1994In an opinion reported at 622 N.E.2d 995 , the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting appellee's motion to suppress the results of an Intoxilyzer test. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Tindell
green
2 sentences1993We will not weigh the sufficiency of the evidence available to continue prosecution, nor second-guess the State, in concluding that the “order is tantamount to a dismissal and therefore appealable.” Id. at 584 (citing State v. Tindell (1980), Ind., 399 N.E.2d 746, 747 ). 1993We will not weigh the sufficiency of the evidence available to continue prosecution, nor second-guess the State, in concluding that the “order is tantamount to a dismissal and therefore appealable.” Id. at 584 (citing State v. Tindell (1980), Ind., 399 N.E.2d 746, 747 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Underwood v. State
green
2 sentences1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . 1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank
green
2 sentences1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . 1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
King v. United States
green
2 sentences1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . 1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brooks v. United States
green
2 sentences1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . 1992Underwood v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 507, 516 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 257 , 107 L.Ed.2d 206 , reh’g denied 493 U.S. 985 , 110 S.Ct. 524 , 107 L.Ed.2d 524 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hiegel v. State
green
1 sentence1991After a bench trial, the trial judge found Walker not guilty, as he found that the State had failed to prove that she was “operating” the automobile after considering the factors set out in our opinion in Hiegel v. State (1989), Ind.App., 538 N.E.2d 265, 267 , transfer denied. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Husk v. State
green
1 sentence1986Even though it *802 does not require chemicals, the intoxilyzer is a chemical test under IC 9-11-1-8, because it is "an analysis of a person's blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance for the determination of the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a drug." Department of toxicology regulations generally applicable to chemical tests encompassed the intoxilyzer test, Husk v. State (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 149, 150-51 , and evidence of them satisfied the foundational requirement of proof that approved test procedures were used. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.