State v. Dill

How courts have described this case

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

• if drivers are informed of the consequences of refusing field sobriety tests and then are asked questions that elicit incriminating responses, those responses are admissible, so long as there is a “clear break” between the test performance and the questioning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hayes
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-04-17· cited 16×
• Christensen v. State
  Wyoming Supreme Court· 2010-07-02· cited 5×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ball v. Gladden
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-07-17· cited 849×
• State v. Scott
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-02-12· cited 17×
• State v. Lawrence
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-12-09· cited 15×
• State v. Whitehead
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-07-14· cited 10×
• State v. Schaffer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-07-22· cited 9×
• State v. Harrison
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-04-21· cited 6×