14 Kan. App. 2d 87 - State v. Lieurance’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co. (2015), City of Overland Park v. Cunningham (1993)
2 district · 28 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Gerstein v. Pugh · United States v. Watson · In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · State v. Nunn · State v. Deutscher
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Lieurance argues that the standard test solution used to ensure accuracy was not reliable because the deputy had no way of knowing once it was added to the machine that it was not used more than the maximum of fourteen times. In fact, the deputy testified that, every time the machine was used, the test was logged on a sheet to ensure that it was only used the proper number of times. Again, this procedure was within the deputy’s personal knowledge and was substantial competent evidence that the trial court could rely on when it admitted the test results. Calling all officers with access to the machine would be unreasonable and probably impossible. Likewise, the certification of the test solution itself and the procedure for adding it to the machine were subjects of the deputy’s testimony, within his range of knowledge, and presented substantial competent evidence for the trial court to rely on.” 14 Kan. App. 2d at 92-93 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ “Whether an adequate evidentiary foundation was laid is a question of fact for the trial court and largely rests in its discretion. [Citation omitted.] So long as there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal.’ State v. Lieurance, 14 Kan. App. 2d 87, 91 , 782 P.2d 1246 (1989), rev. denied 246 Kan. 769 (1990).” Overland Park, 253 Kan. at 773 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]o introduce the results of a breath test, the prosecution must lay a foundation showing that the testing machine was operated according to the manufacturer's operational manual and any regulations set forth by the Department of Health and Environment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fudge
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.