Kirsch, Scott Alan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the jury should have been free to decide on its own whether the evidence showed that the defendant was “operating” a motor vehicle
• holding that the jury should have been free to decide on its own whether the evidence showed that the defendant was “operating” a motor vehicle
• holding that, in a driving-while-intoxicated trial, whether appellant was operating his motorcycle was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury
• holding that, in a driving-while-intoxicated trial, whether appellant was operating his motorcycle was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury
• holding that the jury should have been free to decide on its own whether the evidence showed that the defendant was “operating” a motor vehicle
• holding that a court’s inclusion of a non-statutory definition of ‘operate’ in a written jury charge usurped the jury’s fact-finding power

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).