Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Trusty v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 20, 2016No. Case 114,208Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*734KAUGER, J.,

concurring in paiVdissenting in part, with whom WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, . TAAYLOR, JJ., join:

¶ 1 We retained this cause to address whether the State must prove compliance with regulatory requirements for the collection of blood for a blood alcohol content test to, be used against a driver in a driver’s license revocation proceeding. I agree that DPS bears the burden of showing compliance with regulatory requirements for drawing blood in order to use the test results against a driver. Nevertheless, pursuant to 47 O.S. 2011 § 757: “the provisions of sections 751 through 761 of this…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Fuller v. OdomSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  2. Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  3. Maule v. Independent School District No. 9Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  4. Darnell v. Chrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  5. Clifton v. CliftonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API