Minnesota Supreme Court, 1971

State, Department of Public Safety v. Anderson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1971 · Knutson, Murphy, Otis, Rogosheske, Hachey

192 N.W.2d 95; 291 Minn. 545; 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1082 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, James M. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, and Frederick S. Suhler, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant., Richard H. Breen and Alderman, Holden & Breen, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1975, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State, Department of Public Safety v. Mulvihill (Minn. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, appeals from an order of the Aitkin County probate court, municipal court division, dismissing with prejudice proceedings for revocation of a driver’s license pursuant to Minn. St. 169.123, subd. 6. As in State, Department of Public Safety, v. House, 291 Minn. 424, 192 N. W. 2d 93 (1971), the trial court dismissed the proceedings on the ground that they had been waived by the state as a result of an agreement entered into between defendant and the county attorney at the time a plea of guilty was entered in the criminal aspect of the case.

This case arises from the same court from which the appeal in State, Department of Public Safety, v. House, supra, was taken, involves similar facts, and presents the identical issue as to whether or not the unauthorized act of the county attorney could effectively terminate proceedings for revocation of a driver’s license under the provisions *546 of § 169.123, subd. 6. Unlike the House case, the defendant here was charged with driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. On the issue presented, our decision in the House case controls.

The matter is accordingly reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The attention of the parties is called to our decision in State, Department of Highways, v. Schlief, 289 Minn. 461, 185 N. W. 2d 274 (1971).

Reversed and remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.