6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sellenriek v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2019See also Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Mo. banc 1992) (finding evidence of compliance with 19 CSR § 25-30.031’s requirement of regular maintenance checks is required because it bears directly on “proper functioning and operation of the machine when a blood alcohol analysis is conducted” and is intended “to ensure the reliability of a particular test result.”). 3 This holding does not undercut the importance of the recordkeeping requirements set out in the regulations issued under chapter 302. 2017Thus, the purpose of the maintenance check requirement is to ensure the reliability of a particular test result. 826 S.W.2d at 340 (internal citations omitted). | 4 | 5 |
Kern v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2016Director compares the instant case to Sellenriek v. Dir. of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 340-41 (Mo. banc 1992) (construing a former regulation set out at 19 C.S.R. 20-30.031), in which our high court stated that “the purpose of the maintenance check requirement is to ensure the reliability of a particular test result” and the critical maintenance check was the one “done within 35 days prior to the test sought to be admitted.” Director also points out the Eastern District’s holding in Kern v. Dir. of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), that evidence of a maintenance check performed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Litterellgreen1 sentence1992State v. Litterell, 800 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1990); Woodall, 795 S.W.2d at 420 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Woodall v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1992State v. Litterell, 800 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1990); Woodall, 795 S.W.2d at 420 . | 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.