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.
49 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2026The issue in Smith was rather whether Daubert's "gatekeeping" rule precluded a jury from considering a novel and controversial scientific theory of causation that, while plausible, was on the "outer rim of supportable science." 2004 WL 870832 , at *1. 12 In finding that the experts could testify to that theory, the Smith court distinguished between Frye's general acceptance test and Daubert's reliability test for the content of expert opinions: "As conceived by the Supreme Court, Daubert was intended to supplant the inflexible and ultra-orthodox 'general acceptance' test of Frye v. United Stat 2026The issue in Smith was rather whether Daubert's "gatekeeping" rule precluded a jury from considering a novel and controversial scientific theory of causation that, while plausible, was on the "outer rim of supportable science." 2004 WL 870832 , at *1. 12 In finding that the experts could testify to that theory, the Smith court distinguished between Frye's general acceptance test and Daubert's reliability test for the content of expert opinions: "As conceived by the Supreme Court, Daubert was intended to supplant the inflexible and ultra-orthodox 'general acceptance' test of Frye v. United Stat | 9 | 20 |
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.green2 sentences2017See City of Wichita v. Molitor, 301 Kan. 251, 257 , 341 P.3d 1275 (2015) ("[W]hether the district court failed to correctly apply the Frye standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an abstract question of law subject to de novo review.") (citing Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443, 455-56 , 14 P.3d 1170 [2000]). 2017See City of Wichita v. Molitor, 301 Kan. 251, 257 , 341 P.3d 1275 (2015) ("[W]hether the district court failed to correctly apply the Frye standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence is an abstract question of law subject to de novo review.") (citing Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443, 455-56 , 14 P.3d 1170 [2000]). | 5 | 11 |
State v. Wittegreen2 sentences2015Notwithstanding Witte’s clear directive that a trial court must first “examine, weigh, and decide disputed facts to determine whether the [HGN] test is sufficiently reliable to be admissible for any purpose in Kansas,” State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 330 , 836 P.3d 1110 (1992), the Court of Appeals made the curious declaration that “[i]t is important to note that tire issue presented in this case is not whether HGN testing has now reached the level of acceptance to satisfy the Frye test.” City of Wichita v. Molitor, 46 Kan. 2015Notwithstanding Witte’s clear directive that a trial court must first “examine, weigh, and decide disputed facts to determine whether the [HGN] test is sufficiently reliable to be admissible for any purpose in Kansas,” State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 330 , 836 P.3d 1110 (1992), the Court of Appeals made the curious declaration that “[i]t is important to note that tire issue presented in this case is not whether HGN testing has now reached the level of acceptance to satisfy the Frye test.” City of Wichita v. Molitor, 46 Kan. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Shaddengreen2 sentences2017The Frye test required a "showing that the basis of a scientific opinion is generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular scientific field." State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 819 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010). 2017The Frye test required a "showing that the basis of a scientific opinion is generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular scientific field." State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 819 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences1995See State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63, 71 , 716 P.2d 563 (1986).” Other states have likewise allowed admission of PCR DNA test results. 1995See State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63, 71 , 716 P.2d 563 (1986).” Other states have likewise allowed admission of PCR DNA test results. | 2 | 2 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2026The issue in Smith was rather whether Daubert's "gatekeeping" rule precluded a jury from considering a novel and controversial scientific theory of causation that, while plausible, was on the "outer rim of supportable science." 2004 WL 870832 , at *1. 12 In finding that the experts could testify to that theory, the Smith court distinguished between Frye's general acceptance test and Daubert's reliability test for the content of expert opinions: "As conceived by the Supreme Court, Daubert was intended to supplant the inflexible and ultra-orthodox 'general acceptance' test of Frye v. United Stat 2026The issue in Smith was rather whether Daubert's "gatekeeping" rule precluded a jury from considering a novel and controversial scientific theory of causation that, while plausible, was on the "outer rim of supportable science." 2004 WL 870832 , at *1. 12 In finding that the experts could testify to that theory, the Smith court distinguished between Frye's general acceptance test and Daubert's reliability test for the content of expert opinions: "As conceived by the Supreme Court, Daubert was intended to supplant the inflexible and ultra-orthodox 'general acceptance' test of Frye v. United Stat | 1 | 9 |
In re the Care & Treatment of Girardgreen2 sentences2020The Frye test requires that before expert scientific opinion may be admitted into evidence, the basis of the opinion must be generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular field. 296 Kan. at 376 . 2020The Frye test requires that before expert scientific opinion may be admitted into evidence, the basis of the opinion must be generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular field. 296 Kan. at 376 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Canaangreen2 sentences2017On the other hand, the requirement that the State undertake the burden to satisfy the Frye test and prove the reliability of the underlying scientific theory upon which the expert opinion is based arises "[o]nly when there is a doubt as to the scientific reliability of evidence." Canaan, 265 Kan. at 849 . 2017On the other hand, the requirement that the State undertake the burden to satisfy the Frye test and prove the reliability of the underlying scientific theory upon which the expert opinion is based arises "[o]nly when there is a doubt as to the scientific reliability of evidence." Canaan, 265 Kan. at 849 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774 , 895 P.2d 1238 (1995) (PCR analysis met Frye test). 2013See State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774 , 895 P.2d 1238 (1995) (PCR analysis met Frye test). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Isleygreen2 sentences2013The court first noted that “DNA testing meets the Frye test in Kansas.” 262 Kan. at 285 . 2013The court first noted that “DNA testing meets the Frye test in Kansas.” 262 Kan. at 285 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Marksgreen2 sentences2008In State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 654 , 647 P.2d 1292 (1982), the court upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony from a psychiatrist about rape-trauma syndrome because a review of medical literature showed that it was “generally accepted to be a common reaction to sexual assault.” Similarly, in State v Heath, 264 Kan. 557, 574-75, 577-78 , 957 P.2d 449 (1998), the court held that battered-child syndrome was “an accepted medical diagnosis” such that — even though the testimony was subject to the Frye test — the district court didn’t need to hold a Frye hearing because courts had 2008In State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 654 , 647 P.2d 1292 (1982), the court upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony from a psychiatrist about rape-trauma syndrome because a review of medical literature showed that it was “generally accepted to be a common reaction to sexual assault.” Similarly, in State v Heath, 264 Kan. 557, 574-75, 577-78 , 957 P.2d 449 (1998), the court held that battered-child syndrome was “an accepted medical diagnosis” such that — even though the testimony was subject to the Frye test — the district court didn’t need to hold a Frye hearing because courts had | 1 | 3 |
State v. Haddockred2 sentences1997Hill, 257 Kan. 783 -85; see State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 983-85 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995); MacKnight, The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): The Second Generation of DNA Analysis Methods Takes the Stand, 9 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. 1997Hill, 257 Kan. 783 -85; see State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 983-85 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995); MacKnight, The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): The Second Generation of DNA Analysis Methods Takes the Stand, 9 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. | 1 | 2 |
| Fredricks v. Foltzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Wichita v. Molitorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Wichita v. Molitorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Care & Treatment of Girardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ortega-Mantilla v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Elnickigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Heathgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Appeal of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Golstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Florida Power & Light Co. v. Tursigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Dalkon Shield Trustgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blum Ex Rel. Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Keene Corp. v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Castrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Menagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fieldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lowry
green
2 sentences2000We adopted the Frye test in State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 629 , 185 P.2d 147 (1947). 2000We adopted the Frye test in State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 629 , 185 P.2d 147 (1947). | 7 | 1991–2010 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000In State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47, 54 , 622 P.2d 986 (1981), we identified the purpose of the Frye test: *455 “ ‘Frye was deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles. . . .Several reasons founded in logic and common sense support a posture of judicial caution in this area. 2000In State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47, 54 , 622 P.2d 986 (1981), we identified the purpose of the Frye test: *455 “ ‘Frye was deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles. . . .Several reasons founded in logic and common sense support a posture of judicial caution in this area. | 5 | 1982–2000 |
Smith v. Deppish
green
2 sentences1995Our description of the Frye test in Deppish, 248 Kan. at 236 , and Dr. Giles’ testimony that the Haddock samples were subjected to the laboratory analysis described in his testimony disposes of Haddock’s contention on appeal that the procedures used in the instant case were not established. 1995Our description of the Frye test in Deppish, 248 Kan. at 236 , and Dr. Giles’ testimony that the Haddock samples were subjected to the laboratory analysis described in his testimony disposes of Haddock’s contention on appeal that the procedures used in the instant case were not established. | 4 | 1995–2013 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1998Additionally, Canaan argues for the first time on appeal that there was no evidence that “John Wilson was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of luminol testing techniques or as to the validity and reliability of the exact techniques he used in this case.” Canaan cites State v. Miller, 240 Kan. 733 , 732 P.2d 756 (1987), and State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313 , 836 P.2d 1110 (1992), for the proposition that the Frye test is both an evidentiary and foundational standard. 1998Additionally, Canaan argues for the first time on appeal that there was no evidence that “John Wilson was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of luminol testing techniques or as to the validity and reliability of the exact techniques he used in this case.” Canaan cites State v. Miller, 240 Kan. 733 , 732 P.2d 756 (1987), and State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313 , 836 P.2d 1110 (1992), for the proposition that the Frye test is both an evidentiary and foundational standard. | 3 | 1990–1998 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences1982Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978). 1982Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978). | 3 | 1981–1982 |
State v. Shively
green
2 sentences2017De novo review is appropriate in such circumstances "because the outcome of a Frye holding transcends individual cases such that applying less than a de novo standard could lead to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated claims." State v. Shively, 268 Kan. 573, 576 , 999 P.2d 952 (2000). 30 The State, on the other hand, contends that the abuse of discretion standard is appropriate because the actual question presented is whether it was reasonable for the trial judge to decline to reconsider a pretrial ruling by a different judge. 2017De novo review is appropriate in such circumstances "because the outcome of a Frye holding transcends individual cases such that applying less than a de novo standard could lead to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated claims." State v. Shively, 268 Kan. 573, 576 , 999 P.2d 952 (2000). 30 The State, on the other hand, contends that the abuse of discretion standard is appropriate because the actual question presented is whether it was reasonable for the trial judge to decline to reconsider a pretrial ruling by a different judge. | 2 | 2003–2017 |
State v. Graham
green
2 sentences2008The Frye test requires that the basis of an expert’s opinion “be shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert’s particular scientific field.” Graham, 275 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 4. 2008The Frye test requires that the basis of an expert’s opinion “be shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert’s particular scientific field.” Graham, 275 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 4. | 2 | 2008–2013 |
State v. Warden
green
2 sentences2003In Shively, 268 Kan. at 575-76 , we further stated: “The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 . 2003In Shively, 268 Kan. at 575-76 , we further stated: “The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 . | 2 | 2000–2003 |
Tice v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1985App. 2d 509 , 644 P.2d 490 (1982), the Court of Appeals, using the Frye test, held that the human leucocyte antigen test is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular scientific field to which it belongs as a reliable test to prove paternity. 1985App. 2d 509 , 644 P.2d 490 (1982), the Court of Appeals, using the Frye test, held that the human leucocyte antigen test is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular scientific field to which it belongs as a reliable test to prove paternity. | 2 | 1985–2000 |
United States v. Bruno
green
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Stout
green
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Linn
green
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Morse
green
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Alston
neutral
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Brooke v. People
green
2 sentences1981The Frye test has been utilized by courts in their consideration of the admissibility of paraffin tests (Brooke v. People, 139 Colo. 388 , 339 P.2d 993 [1959]); medical testimony regarding the cause of birth defects (Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. 1981The Frye test has been utilized by courts in their consideration of the admissibility of paraffin tests (Brooke v. People, 139 Colo. 388 , 339 P.2d 993 [1959]); medical testimony regarding the cause of birth defects (Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Kelly
yellow
2 sentences1981In People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24, 31-32 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 (1976), the California Supreme Court points out the desirability of the Frye test in the following language: “Frye was deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles. . . . 1981In People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24, 31-32 , 130 Cal. Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 (1976), the California Supreme Court points out the desirability of the Frye test in the following language: “Frye was deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles. . . . | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance
red
2 sentences1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. 1981Co., 8 Wis. 2d 343 , 99 N.W.2d 163 [1959]); breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication (People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270 , 38 N.W.2d 322 [1949]); truth serum injections (State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430 , 462 P.2d 729 [1969]); blood tests (People v. Alston, 79 Misc. 2d 1077 , 362 N.Y.S.2d 356 [1974]); neutron activation analysis (State v. Stout, 478 S.W. 368 [Mo. 1972]); Nalline tests for detection of narcotics use (People v. Williams, 164 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 858 , 331 P.2d 251 [1958]); ink identification tests (United States v. Bruno, 333 F. Supp. 570 [E.D. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
| In re Care & Treatment of Cone green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Martinez v. MILBURN ENTERPRISES, INC. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re McKenna neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re the Commitment of R.S. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Frye neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| United States Ex Rel. Green v. Washington green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Commonwealth v. Bartolacci green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Price green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Ritt green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Mendoza green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State Ex Rel. Hausner v. Blackman green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. McDonald green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Fuller green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Logerquist v. McVey green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Dykes green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Colbert green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Barker green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Tran green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Webb neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Department of Social Services ex rel. Jenny S. v. Mark S. neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.