Supreme Court of Iowa· 12/23/1992
State v. Dulaney
Citations
- 493 N.W.2d 787
- 1992 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 446
- 1992 WL 380290
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal
- noting the police asked multiple times for a chemical test and the defendant, twice by his silence and finally by his words, refused
- finding State did not destroy the evidence in an effort to thwart the defendant when it followed “its usual procedure”
- no evidence State \intentionally destroyed” blood sample \in an effort to deprive [defendant] of evidence”
- plasma sample showed alcohol concentration consistent with blood sample, so no valid claim that further testing of blood sample could yield exculpatory results
- motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McGiverin, Larson, Schultz, Lavorato, Andreasen
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Ex Parte NapperCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2010-09-29· cited 207×
- Pena v. StateTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2007-05-02· cited 95×
- State v. AtleySupreme Court of Iowa· 1997-06-18· cited 75×
- State v. SteffesNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1993-05-26· cited 72×
- Patterson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1999-12-09· cited 60×
- Toby Joseph Welch v. Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle DivisionSupreme Court of Iowa· 2011-08-12· cited 59×
- Stuart v. StateIdaho Supreme Court· 1995-02-21· cited 56×
- State v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2003-05-09· cited 47×
- State v. HartsfieldSupreme Court of Iowa· 2004-06-16· cited 40×
- State v. BlackwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 2000-07-14· cited 27×
- Whitsel v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa· 1994-12-21· cited 23×
- State v. WatersCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 1994-02-25· cited 9×
- State of Iowa v. Jordan Lee BrownCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 2014-05-14
- Cecil Groves v. Thomas J. BlankenshipTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 1991-09-18
- Napper, Ex Parte Lawrence JamesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2010-09-29
- State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 2018-01-10
- State of Iowa v. Karl Jermaine FlaggCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 2020-05-13
- State of Iowa v. Mark Bernard RetterathSupreme Court of Iowa· 2022-05-06
- State of Iowa v. William Bret MoothartCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 2025-10-01
- William D. Beeman v. State of IowaCourt of Appeals of Iowa· 2025-12-03
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,405×
- Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 3,366×
- State v. McKettrickSupreme Court of Iowa· 1992-01-22· cited 168×
- State v. LangletSupreme Court of Iowa· 1979-09-19· cited 79×
- State v. HulbertSupreme Court of Iowa· 1992-02-19· cited 68×
- State v. JensenSupreme Court of Iowa· 1974-03-27· cited 59×
- Buda v. FultonSupreme Court of Iowa· 1968-03-05· cited 55×
- State v. OwensSupreme Court of Iowa· 1988-01-20· cited 38×
- State v. SchlemmeSupreme Court of Iowa· 1981-02-18· cited 38×
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of Iowa· 1991-05-15· cited 31×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Iowa· 1988-10-19· cited 23×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Iowa· 1983-08-17· cited 20×
- Rodriguez v. FultonSupreme Court of Iowa· 1971-09-27· cited 18×
- State v. CraigSupreme Court of Iowa· 1992-10-21· cited 16×
- State v. SteadmanSupreme Court of Iowa· 1984-06-06· cited 11×
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.