Cited by

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

145 citing documents.

Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 513 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 513 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safety 508 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safety 508 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lindberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 498 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lindberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 498 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Przymus v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Przymus v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Tate v. Commissioner of Pub.
State v. Jensen 482 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Jensen 482 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
State v. Moore 458 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1990
A proper foundation for a scientific test 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.”
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Quick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 429 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Quick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 429 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-68 (Minn.1977) (proponent of test has the burden of making a prima facie showing that the test is reliable and burden then falls on the opponent to show why the test was untrustworthy).
Nesseth v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nesseth v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
It is then incumbent on the opponent to come forward with evidence to suggest reasons why the test was untrustworthy
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(where the prosecution provided “sufficient indicia of reliability” to establish the prima facie admissibility of blood test results, defendant has the duty to suggest a reason why the bood test was not reliable); (“Once a
City of Springfield v. Anderson 411 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of Springfield v. Anderson 411 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
It is equally well settled that admissibility of chemical test results depends upon “prima facie proof of the trustworthiness of the test’s administration.”
Haagenson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Haagenson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
568 (Minn.1977); -68 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Israel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 400 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Israel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 400 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nelson 399 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Luoma v. City of Minneapolis 398 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Luoma v. City of Minneapolis 398 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ahrens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 396 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ahrens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 396 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schultz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schultz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wells v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wells v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Palmer 391 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Palmer 391 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant’s own witness, Thomas Burr, acknowledged that the absence of these factors indicated that there “probably was not alcohol formation.” In short, the prosecution met its burden of establishing that the testing device had “sufficient indicia of reliability.”
State v. Frandsen 391 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Frandsen 391 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
*61 The proponent of a scientific test has the burden to prove that the test is reliable “and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
Schwarzrock v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schwarzrock v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Falaas v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kadrlik v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986