Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tanner, 457 So. 2d 1172.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Joseph W. Miller La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
State v. Young 140 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Shirley 10 So. 3d 224 La. 2009
[nIn stark contrast to the State’s contention
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Doucette 899 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Meredith 833 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Alcazar 784 So. 2d 1276 La. 2001
an analogous case in which a defendant sought to raise an objection to the admissibility of chemical test results by way of a motion to suppress.
State v. Lee 778 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Bright 676 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Charles 602 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Fitch 572 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
defendant argues that his motion to suppress was the proper procedural vehicle to resolve the question of the admissibility of his blood test results through a pretrial ruling on the question; and, thus, defendant concludes that the original ruling of the trial court granting his motion to suppress should b
State v. Schaub 563 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Rowell at 800 ; -1175 (La.1984).
State v. Frederick 561 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
In order to take advantage of the presumption
State v. Chauvin 560 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
The trial court erroneously denied defendant’s
State v. Hebert 559 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Adherence to these provisions must be proven at trial in order to show that the State strictly complied with the regulations
State v. McElroy 553 So. 2d 456 La. 1989
State v. Honeyman 545 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. McElroy 541 So. 2d 1386 La. 1989
State v. Hill 531 So. 2d 463 La. 1988
Gardner v. Campbell 532 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Fairbanks 531 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Rowell, 517 So.2d at 802 .
State v. Edwards 525 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
32:661C(1) and 32:666A(3) and B. Defendant alleges that, if he had taken the test, the results would have been inadmissible for failure to follow the statutory procedures; therefore, his refusal should likewise be inadmissible
State v. Rowell 517 So. 2d 799 La. 1988
State v. Jackson 519 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
[2] the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a motion to suppress is available to question the admissibility of chemical test results that can result in the legal presumption of intoxication.
State v. Moore 507 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Rowell 505 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Taylor 502 So. 2d 537 La. 1987
State v. Bailey 500 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed “the importance of establishing safeguards to guarantee the accuracy of chemical tests.”
State v. Fairleigh 490 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Pennington 485 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
App. 4th Cir.1984), writ denied
State v. Taylor 483 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986