State v. Seager

How courts have described this case

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

• “There is nothing in the present statutory conditions relative to implied consent which has the effect of changing the foundation requirements of the statutes for the admission of tests performed pursuant to the consent of the accused.”
• \There is nothing in the present statutory conditions relative to implied consent which has the effect of changing the foundation requirements of the statutes for the admission of tests performed pursuant to the consent of the accused.\
• “There is nothing in the present statutory conditions relative to implied consent which has the effect of changing the foundation requirements of the statutes for the admission of tests performed pursuant to the consent of the accused.”
• \There is nothing in the present statutory conditions relative to implied consent which has the effect of changing the foundation requirements of the statutes for the admission of tests performed pursuant to the consent of the accused.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Wetherell
  Washington Supreme Court· 1973-10-11· cited 47×
• State v. Howard
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1975-01-23· cited 12×
• State v. Hanusiak
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1966-10-28· cited 12×
• Roseborough v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2010-02-16· cited 7×
• Roseborough v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2009-02-24· cited 2×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Otte v. State
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1961-04-21· cited 32×