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.
9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 201 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy District.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy District Anchor | green | “use of the word 'may' is generally construed to make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary .” | 52 |
| 2 | State v. Vega | green | “an accused is not denied his constitutional right to present a defense nor is the state relieved of its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where a trial judge does not permit expert testimony to attack the reliability of intoxilyzers in general.” | 49 |
| 3 | City of Westerville v. Cunningham | green | “generally recognized as being reasonably reliable on the issue of intoxication when conducted with proper equipment and by competent operators.” | 40 |
| 4 | State v. Vega | green | “an accused may not make a general attack upon the reliability and validity of the breath testing instrument.” | 18 |
| 5 | State v. Tanner | green | “the defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” | 14 |
| 6 | State v. Boczar, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2005) | green | “in order to demonstrate the legislature infringed upon the judiciary's power to enact evidentiary rules appellant must demonstrate the legislation contradicts or is an attempt to supersede an existing evidentiary rule.” | 10 |
| 7 | State v. Vega | green | “in view of the fact that the general assembly has legislatively provided for the admission of such tests in r.c. 4511.19 if analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health.” | 10 |
| 8 | State v. Massie, 2007 Ca 24 (3-21-2008) | green | “forestalled by the 'legislative mandate recognized in vega” | 5 |
| 9 | State v. Massie, 2007 Ca 24 (3-21-2008) | green | “massie's daubert challenge to the bac datamaster test results is forestalled by the 'legislative mandate recognized in vega,' and the trial court properly limited massie to the issue of his own test” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.