7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. New York State Thruway Authoritygreen2 sentences1969See, also, Murphy v. New York State Thruway Authority (1960), 23 Misc 2d 1078 ( 204 NYS2d 953 ); 32 CJS, Evidence, § 588 (2). 1969See, also, Murphy v. New York State Thruway Authority (1960), 23 Misc 2d 1078 ( 204 NYS2d 953 ); 32 CJS, Evidence, § 588 (2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gard v. Michigan Produce Haulers
green
2 sentences2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a 2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a | 4 | 1983–2015 |
Lessenhop v. Norton
green
2 sentences2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a 2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a | 3 | 1969–2015 |
People v. Cords
green
2 sentences2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a 2015The proper foundation that must be established for admission of blood-test results is that outlined in Gard v Mich Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 174 NW2d 73 (1969) and People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 428 ; 254 NW2d 911 (1977).4 Specifically, the following foundational requirements are necessary “for admission of the results of a blood sample analysis” into evidence: “T]he party seeking introduction must show (1) that the blood was timely taken (2) from a particular identified body (3) by an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hubenschmidt v. Shears
green
2 sentences1986Hubenschmidt v Shears, 403 Mich 486, 490 ; 270 NW2d 2 (1978). 1986Hubenschmidt v Shears, 403 Mich 486, 490 ; 270 NW2d 2 (1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Weaver
green
1 sentence1977People v Weaver, supra, McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, supra. In short, the "implied consent” statute was simply not a factor in obtaining the blood sample and test results and consequently does not act to limit the evidentiary use to which these test results may be put. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1975Lebel and a recent case with almost identical facts, McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, supra, support this conclusion. 4 Subsequent to the opinion in Lebel , the United States Supreme Court handed down Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 ; 86 S Ct 1826 ; 16 L Ed 2d 908 (1966), which upheld the admissibility of the results of a blood sample analysis conducted after the defendant had been arrested for driving under *727 the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1975Lebel and a recent case with almost identical facts, McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, supra, support this conclusion. 4 Subsequent to the opinion in Lebel , the United States Supreme Court handed down Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 ; 86 S Ct 1826 ; 16 L Ed 2d 908 (1966), which upheld the admissibility of the results of a blood sample analysis conducted after the defendant had been arrested for driving under *727 the influence of intoxicating liquor. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.