State v. Fish

How courts have described this case

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

• “Proof of driving does not require an eyewitness to the driving. It may be shown by circumstantial evidence . . . .”
• “operating” and, “driving” are synonymous and used interchangeably

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Kendall
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2002-12-06· cited 52×
• State v. Darrow
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2016-07-01· cited 50×
• State v. Zeiner
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2022-08-26· cited 36×
• State v. Ahrens
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2012-12-21· cited 26×
• City of Wichita v. Hull
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1986-09-11· cited 20×
• State v. Finch
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2011-01-07· cited 18×
• State v. Perkins
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2012-12-21· cited 12×
• State v. Ward
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1983-03-26· cited 8×
• Furthmyer v. Kansas Department of Revenue
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1994-05-13· cited 4×
• Jarmer v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 2023-01-13
• Jarmer v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2024-04-19

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Dill
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1957-12-07· cited 27×
• State v. Hazen
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1954-07-06· cited 17×