159 Ind. App. 180 - Klebs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1995
21 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 Glover v. State · Young v. State · Sanchez v. State · Fisher v. State · Dunn v. State
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The operator administering the test was certified by the department of toxicology; (2) The equipment used in the test was inspected and approved by the department of toxicology; and (8) The operator followed procedures approved by the department of toxicology..”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hartman v. State · State v. Page“We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the State sustained its burden in establishing a foundation for admission of the results of the breathalyzer test. There was a fatal evidentiary absence germane to each of the three requirements. There was no evidence to show the operator was certified within the two years prior to administering the test in the instant ease as required by the rules prescribed by the department of toxicology. The operator’s testimony said by the State to establish the machine’s inspection and approval was as follows: “Q. Did you know of your own knowledge of its inspection and operating efficiency? A. Yes. Q. Would you state to the Court the degree of operating efficiency of the machine that you used and of which you are testifying about. Or perhaps instead of efficiency I should say accu-rancy (sic). A. Plus or minus. I can’t answer that.” We are of the opinion that this testimony falls short of establishing that the machine used to test Klebs had been properly inspected by the department of toxicology. Lieutenant Awe described the technique used to administer the test in response to a preliminary voir dire by Klebs’ counsel, however, the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that the procedure described resembled the procedure approved by the department of toxicology.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mullins v. State · Boothe v. State“(a) The director of the Department of Toxicology of the Indiana University School of Medicine is authorized to adopt the necessary rules and regulations to set standards for the selection, training, certification and recertification of breal-alizer [sic] test operators and to provide for the periodic inspection of breathalizer [sic] test devices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Page
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.