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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steward v. Stategreen2 sentences2020If the offer was illusory, Kingma’s refusal would not be a proper basis for the administrative suspension of his driving privileges, and our reversal of the trial court’s order denying his motion for judicial review would be in order. [16] “A chemical test cannot be ‘refused’ unless it is ‘offered’; thus, the propriety of the offer of a chemical test is relevant to the issue of whether it is refused.” Steward v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1292, 1294 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). 2017As explained in Steward v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), a chemical test “cannot be ‘refused’ unless it is ‘offered’; thus the propriety of the offer of a chemical test is relevant to the issue of whether it is refused.” Id. at 1294 (holding Steward did not refuse urine test for marijuana: offer of test was illusory because not administered properly; no sample was obtained during required three-hour statutory window). | 3 | 4 |
Zakhi v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See Zakhi v. State (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 683, 686 (to establish adequate "refusal," arresting officer must inform the accused of the consequences of refusal to take the test); Gibbs v. State (1983), Ind.App., 444 N.E.2d 893, 895 , reh'g denied (driver who would not take a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer test did not "knowingly refuse to submit" to a chemical test because she was not properly informed of the implied consent law and of the consequences of refusal to submit) 1 Steward was not properly offered a chemical test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kristy Burnell v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016So yeah, I guess I gotta take it.” Id. at 774 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gibbs v. State
green
1 sentence1994See Zakhi v. State (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 683, 686 (to establish adequate "refusal," arresting officer must inform the accused of the consequences of refusal to take the test); Gibbs v. State (1983), Ind.App., 444 N.E.2d 893, 895 , reh'g denied (driver who would not take a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer test did not "knowingly refuse to submit" to a chemical test because she was not properly informed of the implied consent law and of the consequences of refusal to submit) 1 Steward was not properly offered a chemical test. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.