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.
7 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Staples v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025In Jent’s case, the jury instruction utilized by the trial court reading, “under the influence of alcohol or methamphetamine” precisely mirrors the vehicular homicide statute’s use of the conjunctive “or” in its language, “under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or other substance.” We cannot assign error to a trial court for providing the jury with an instruction that follows the very language of the underlying criminal statute. 2 The methamphetamine found in Jent’s blood is a statutory “controlled substance.” KRS 189A.010(12)(l). 13 When preserved for appellate review, a jury | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2008See Lopez v. Commonwealth, 173 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Ky.2005). 2008See Lopez v. Commonwealth, 173 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Ky.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Colwell v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2006KRS 189A.010(1) provides in pertinent part: A person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in the state: (a) Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more as measured by a scientifically reliable test or tests of a sample of the person’s breath or blood taken within two (2) hours of cessation of operation or physical control of a motor vehicle; (b) While under the influence of alcohol; [[Image here]] Each offense requires proof of at least one element that the other does not, i.e., being manifestly intoxicated in public 1 to the degree that the suspect or ot | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. City of Tulsagreen1 sentence2006See also Harris v. City of Tulsa, 589 P.2d 1082, 1085-86 (Okla.Crim.App.1979) (holding instruction for public intoxication not required as lesser-included offense in prosecution for DUI). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Daygreen1 sentence2006KRS 189A.010(1) provides in pertinent part: A person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in the state: (a) Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more as measured by a scientifically reliable test or tests of a sample of the person’s breath or blood taken within two (2) hours of cessation of operation or physical control of a motor vehicle; (b) While under the influence of alcohol; [[Image here]] Each offense requires proof of at least one element that the other does not, i.e., being manifestly intoxicated in public 1 to the degree that the suspect or ot | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Minixgreen1 sentence2003Specifically, under the statute, “[a] person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in this state ... [h]aving an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more as measured by a scientifically reliable test or tests of a sample of the person’s breath or blood taken within two (2) hours of cessation of operation or physical control of a motor vehicle ... [w]hile under the influence of alcohol[.]” Under our statutory scheme however, an individual arrested for driving under the influence who has submitted to the initial test administered by the state is allowed an independ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ford Motor Co. v. Smith
green
2 sentences2022The Board also cited to three cases to support its decision: Campbell, supra; Wilson v. Wizor, 544 S.W.2d 231 (Ky. 1976); and Ford Motor Company v. Smith, 283 Ky. 795 , 143 S.W.2d 507 (1940). -15- We believe the Board erred in its interpretation. 2022The Board also cited to three cases to support its decision: Campbell, supra; Wilson v. Wizor, 544 S.W.2d 231 (Ky. 1976); and Ford Motor Company v. Smith, 283 Ky. 795 , 143 S.W.2d 507 (1940). -15- We believe the Board erred in its interpretation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wilson v. Wizor
green
1 sentence2022The Board also cited to three cases to support its decision: Campbell, supra; Wilson v. Wizor, 544 S.W.2d 231 (Ky. 1976); and Ford Motor Company v. Smith, 283 Ky. 795 , 143 S.W.2d 507 (1940). -15- We believe the Board erred in its interpretation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Campbell v. City of Booneville
green
1 sentence2022The Board also cited to three cases to support its decision: Campbell, supra; Wilson v. Wizor, 544 S.W.2d 231 (Ky. 1976); and Ford Motor Company v. Smith, 283 Ky. 795 , 143 S.W.2d 507 (1940). -15- We believe the Board erred in its interpretation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Artrip v. Noe
green
1 sentence2015The elements of this crime are described as follows: (1) person shall not. operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in this state: (a) Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more as measured by a scientifically reliable test or tests of a sam- . pie of the person’s breath or blood taken within two (2) hours of cessation of operation or physical control of a motor vehicle; Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Wirth
green
1 sentence2004The court in Commonwealth v. Wirth, Ky., 936 S.W.2d 78 (1996), held that the Commonwealth may prosecute a defendant under multiple subsections and theories of KRS 189A.010(1), and that it is not required to elect one subsection, to the exclusion of all others, under which to proceed. | 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.