6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coyle v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2006To establish a proper foundation for the admission of a breathalyzer test, the director has the burden of demonstrating that “the test was performed: (1) following the approved techniques and methods of the division of health, (2) by an operator holding a valid permit, (3) on equipment and devices approved by the division.” Coyle, 181 S.W.3d at 64 . “[Ojnce the [djirector proves these foundational requirements, the BAC result should be admitted.” Coyle v. Dir. of Revenue, 88 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Wisdom v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2001Wisdom v. Director of Revenue, 988 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo.App.1999); Farr v. Director of Revenue, 914 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Farr v. Director of Revenue State of Mo.green1 sentence2001Wisdom v. Director of Revenue, 988 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo.App.1999); Farr v. Director of Revenue, 914 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Stuhr v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1990Stuhr v. Director of Revenue, 766 S.W.2d 446, 449 [2] (Mo. banc 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coyle v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2006To establish a proper foundation for the admission of a breathalyzer test, the director has the burden of demonstrating that “the test was performed: (1) following the approved techniques and methods of the division of health, (2) by an operator holding a valid permit, (3) on equipment and devices approved by the division.” Coyle, 181 S.W.3d at 64 . “[Ojnce the [djirector proves these foundational requirements, the BAC result should be admitted.” Coyle v. Dir. of Revenue, 88 S.W.3d 887, 895 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lasley v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences1999As he contends, before the admission of the maintenance report is required to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a breathalyzer test result, there must be an objection to the admission of the test result "sufficiently clear and definite to enable the trial court to understand the reason for the objection." Lasley, 954 S.W.2d at 331 . 1999As he contends, before the admission of the maintenance report is required to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a breathalyzer test result, there must be an objection to the admission of the test result “sufficiently clear and definite to enable the trial court to understand the reason for the objection.” Lasley, 954 S.W.2d at 331 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Tidwell v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1997As a general rule, when a timely objection is made to the admission of a breathalyzer test result, the proponent for its admission usually has to meet all foundational prerequisites to its admission. 2 Tidwell, *753 931 S.W.2d at 490 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Litterell
green
1 sentence1992We are aware that State v. Littered, 800 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.App.1990) has a differing view than that of Woodall as to what constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a breathalyzer test result. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.