Cited by

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

145 citing documents.

Kadrlik v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
568 (Minn.1977); -68 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Falaas v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McGregor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McGregor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Daley v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Daley v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
It is well settled that a “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.”
Engen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Engen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“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.”
Pasek v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In order to lay a sufficient foundation to introduce a test into evidence, the proponent “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 v. Jones 381 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Jones 381 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scheper v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Scheper v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citations and footnote omitted).
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
When a chemical test is used, the proponent has the burden of showing that the test is reliable and “that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” (citations omitted).
Renner v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fritzke v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Renner v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fritzke v. Commissioner of Public Safety 373 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Michaelis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 371 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Michaelis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 371 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS The State, as the proponent of the breathalyzer 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.”
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Heitkamp v. State 363 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Heitkamp v. State 363 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(fact that blood test kit was furnished by BCA sufficient indicium of reliability to establish the prima facie admissibility of the test results; up to defendant to suggest a reason why the blood test was untrustworthy).
Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kooi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kooi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Noren v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The proponent of a chemical test must establish that the test is reliable and “that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
Tate v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tate v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is equally settled that admissibility of a chemical test result depends upon “prima facie proof of the trustworthiness of the test’s administration.”
Haegele v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haegele v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The State, as the proponent of the breathalyzer test, “must establish that the test is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
State v. Sneva 353 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
State v. Sneva 353 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1984
104, 702, and 901; State v. Anderson, 302 Minn. 77
State v. Voracek 353 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Voracek 353 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Klingbeil v. Truesdell, supra; Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., Minn.