Legal Opinion

People v. Mucha

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 31, 1986No. 84-0596PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Schnake

Following a hearing conducted pursuant to the Illinois implied-consent statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95½, par. 11 — 501.1), the trial court found that the State had met its burden on the issues required to be proved under that law. Defendant, Jeannette Mucha, appeals, contending (1) that she should not be deemed to have “refused to submit” to a breathalyzer test because her refusal was a result of confusion on her part between her Miranda rights and her rights under the implied-consent law, (2) that she had a constitutional and statutory right to consult an attorney prior to deciding…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State, Department of Highways v. BeckeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  2. People Ex Rel. Wilcox v. Equity Funding Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1975
  3. State v. SeverinoHawaii Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Rust v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Wiseman v. SullivanNebraska Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sheppard v. Miss. State Highway PatrolMississippi Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. EngelbrechtAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  3. People v. OkunAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  4. Kurecka v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  5. Taylor v. Village Commons Plaza, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987

2 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