Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565.

145 citing documents.

Derek Alexander Knapp v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Derek Alexander Knapp v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Admissibility of a chemical test result depends upon ‘prima facie proof of the trustworthiness of the test’s administration.’” Vondrachek, d at 272 ().
State of Minnesota v. Robert Daniel Neumiller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Robert Daniel Neumiller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Junker v. Comm'r Safety 925 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Junker v. Comm'r Safety 925 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dille , , 567 (Minn. 1977).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The proponent of a chemical or scientific test must establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
17, 1987) (d 565, 568 (Minn. 1977)).
John Joseph Vondrachek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Admissi bility of a chemical test result depends upon “p rima facie proof of the trus tworthiness of the test’s administration.”
Laurie Ann McIntyre, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1766 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
William Robert Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety, d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2005) ( ).
State v. Norgaard 899 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Norgaard 899 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The proponent of a chemical or scientific test must establish that the *208 test “is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: The proponent of a chemical or scientific test must establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
Under this prong, the proponent must show that the testing procedures have not introduced “contaminants” that would have “adversely affected the reliability of the test.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
there was no foundation guaranteeing the reliability of the PBT, so “the test result is not probative as a measurement and, hence, irrelevant.” The court alternatively determined that Minn.Stat.
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The proponent of a chemical or scientific test must establish that the test itself is rehable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
611(b) (limiting cross-examination to matters addressed in direct examination); (stating that court has broad discretion to determine scope of cross-examination).
Kramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 706 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 706 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The commissioner must make a prima facie case that the test is reliable and “that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” (citations omitted); see Tate v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Roettger v. Commissioner of Public Safety 633 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Roettger v. Commissioner of Public Safety 633 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Foundational reliability “requires the ‘proponent of a * * test [to] establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.’ ” Moore, d at 98 (alteration in original) ().
Sentinel Management Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 615 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2000
Foundational reliability “requires the ‘proponent of a * * * test [to] establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.’ ” ().
Bortnem v. Commissioner of Public Safety 610 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Bortnem v. Commissioner of Public Safety 610 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
*705 ANALYSIS I. As the proponent of the alcohol concentration test, the state has the initial burden to “establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
Genung v. Commissioner of Public Safety 589 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Genung v. Commissioner of Public Safety 589 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
ANALYSIS The party offering the results of a chemical or scientific test into evidence has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the test is reliable and that its administration “conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” (citations omitted).
State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
State v. Parker 585 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1998
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(concluding that evidence of speeding and driving onto shoulder of road supported jury verdict of careless driving).
State v. Olson 515 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Olson 515 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by