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 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Plouff v. Stategreen1 sentence2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wittegreen1 sentence2010Witte, 251 Kan. at 331-32 (Six, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Dodge City v. Ingram
green
2 sentences2010App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight “clues of intoxication”); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan. 2009App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that Shaw failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight clues); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2010App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight “clues of intoxication”); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan. 2009App. 2d 485, 487 , 154 P.3d 524 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 950 (2007) (summarizing officer’s testimony that Shaw failed the walk-and-tum test by exhibiting four of eight clues); City of Dodge City v. Ingram, 33 Kan. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
City of Wichita v. Molitor
green
1 sentence2015But in doing so, it also acknowledged and considered tire evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that Molitor was not intoxicated, noting he “was able to speak without slurring his words, produced his identification without difficulty, and had only one clue each on the walk-and-tum test and tire one-leg-stand test.” 46 Kan. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Edgar
green
1 sentence2013Here, tire panel determined that other evidence included: an odor of alcohol, Edgar’s admission to drinking, Edgar’s initial confusion when asked for his driver’s license, and his missing two steps on the walk-and-tum test. 45 Kan. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sullivan v. Kansas Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2012Combining this evidence, and relying upon Sullivan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 15 Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City of Norton v. Wonderly
green
1 sentence2011Allen analogizes his case to the situation in City of Norton v. Wonderly, 38 Kan. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
City of New York v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. DiNonno
green
1 sentence2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that 2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that 2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hawkins v. State
green
2 sentences2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that 2010App. 1997) (explaining that the battery of field sobriety tests typically includes the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-tum test, and the finger-to-nose test, are designed to disclose “physical manifestations of intoxication,” and do not “require the evidentiary foundation for the admission of expert scientific testimony”); State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 276 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986) (distinguishing the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test, which rests upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy, from the *821 psychomotor tests, which rely upon a basis of common knowledge, and holding that | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.