Skip to main content

Robertson v. State

Citations

  • 604 So. 2d 783
  • 1992 WL 163957

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that when State fails to comply with administrative rules and statutory provisions governing approved testing methods, test results are admissible if State lays the common law predicate
  • paraphrasing an analogous Iowa case and explaining that “[t]he same is true of Florida’s implied consent law”
  • test results of blood drawn for exclusively medical purposes are outside the scope of the Implied Consent Law, and may be seized and used as evidence in DUI prosecutions
  • following State v. Wallin, 195 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Iowa 1972)
  • “[T]he implied consent statute ... applies] only when blood is being taken from a person based on probable cause that the person has caused death or serious bodily injury as a result of a DUI offense specified in the statutes.”
  • the party seeking to introduce test results must establish: (1) the test was reliable, (2) the test was performed by a qualified operator with the proper equipment, and (3) expert testimony must be presented concerning the meaning of the test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kogan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

59 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.