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.
5 California opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Emerson v. Stategreen1 sentence1994App. 1994) 880 S.W.2d 759, 768-769 [same]; State v. O'Key (1993) 123 Ore.App. 54 [ 858 P.2d 904, 907-908 ] [same].) The foregoing decisions, however, do not explain how police officers are competent to establish general acceptance of HGN testing in the scientific community, or how they are qualified to relate the scientific bases underlying the nystagmus test. | 1 | 1 |
Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences1992(Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 386 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) Vega’s opinion that appellant was under the influence of alcohol, to the extent it was based on the nystagmus test, rests on scientific premises well beyond his knowledge, training, or education. 1992(Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 386 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) Vega’s opinion that appellant was under the influence of alcohol, to the extent it was based on the nystagmus test, rests on scientific premises well beyond his knowledge, training, or education. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Leahy
green
2 sentences2018Quoting from Leahy , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 , Joehnk reiterated that, once HGN testing is accepted in the scientific community, the prosecution is not required to submit expert testimony to confirm a police officer's evaluation of that test. " 'Of course, nothing would prevent the defendant from challenging that evaluation with expert testimony of his own.' " ( Joehnk, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508 , 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 6 .) In this matter, when read together, Leahy and Joehnk establish that an officer, with adequate training and experience in performing 2018Quoting from Leahy , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 , Joehnk reiterated that, once HGN testing is accepted in the scientific community, the prosecution is not required to submit expert testimony to confirm a police officer's evaluation of that test. " 'Of course, nothing would prevent the defendant from challenging that evaluation with expert testimony of his own.' " ( Joehnk, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508 , 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 6 .) In this matter, when read together, Leahy and Joehnk establish that an officer, with adequate training and experience in performing | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Joehnk
green
2 sentences2018Quoting from Leahy , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 , Joehnk reiterated that, once HGN testing is accepted in the scientific community, the prosecution is not required to submit expert testimony to confirm a police officer's evaluation of that test. " 'Of course, nothing would prevent the defendant from challenging that evaluation with expert testimony of his own.' " ( Joehnk, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508 , 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 6 .) In this matter, when read together, Leahy and Joehnk establish that an officer, with adequate training and experience in performing 2018Quoting from Leahy , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 , Joehnk reiterated that, once HGN testing is accepted in the scientific community, the prosecution is not required to submit expert testimony to confirm a police officer's evaluation of that test. " 'Of course, nothing would prevent the defendant from challenging that evaluation with expert testimony of his own.' " ( Joehnk, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508 , 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 6 .) In this matter, when read together, Leahy and Joehnk establish that an officer, with adequate training and experience in performing | 3 | 2018–2018 |
State v. O'KEY
green
1 sentence1994App. 1994) 880 S.W.2d 759, 768-769 [same]; State v. O'Key (1993) 123 Ore.App. 54 [ 858 P.2d 904, 907-908 ] [same].) The foregoing decisions, however, do not explain how police officers are competent to establish general acceptance of HGN testing in the scientific community, or how they are qualified to relate the scientific bases underlying the nystagmus test. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.