6 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Standish v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences1991In Standish v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900 , Syl. ¶ 2, 683 P.2d 1276 (1984), the Supreme Court held: “A conditional response such as, T want to talk to my attorney (or parent or relative or friend or some other third person) first,’ is not a consent to take a breath or blood test. 1991In Standish v. Department of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900 , Syl. ¶ 2, 683 P.2d 1276 (1984), the Supreme Court held: “A conditional response such as, T want to talk to my attorney (or parent or relative or friend or some other third person) first,’ is not a consent to take a breath or blood test. | 3 | 1991–2022 |
Nauheim v. City of Topeka
green
2 sentences2022Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019). 2 A General Overview of Kansas' Implied Consent Statutes K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 8-1001(b)(1) provides that if an officer has probable cause to believe the person has violated the statute prohibiting driving under the influence and the person has been arrested or taken into custody in relation thereto or the person was involved in a vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury, or death, then the officer shall request the person to submit to a breath or blood test. 2022Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019). 2 A General Overview of Kansas' Implied Consent Statutes K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 8-1001(b)(1) provides that if an officer has probable cause to believe the person has violated the statute prohibiting driving under the influence and the person has been arrested or taken into custody in relation thereto or the person was involved in a vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury, or death, then the officer shall request the person to submit to a breath or blood test. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2013If we answer yes to that question, then we would need to decide whether the proper remedy for a violation is the suppression of the breath or blood test, which is the remedy our court approved in State v. Kelly, 14 Kan. 2013App. 2d 182 , Syl. ¶ 3, 786 P.2d 623 (1990). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Compton
green
2 sentences2008In State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 694 , 664 P.2d 1370 (1983), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the admission into evidence of the taking or refusing to take a blood-alcohol test and found that the admission of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment *928 privilege against self-incrimination. 2008In State v. Compton, 233 Kan. 690, 694 , 664 P.2d 1370 (1983), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the admission into evidence of the taking or refusing to take a blood-alcohol test and found that the admission of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment *928 privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re the Driving Privileges of Hamstead
green
1 sentence1991It is a refusal.” In In re Hamstead, 11 Kan. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.