Minnesota Supreme Court, 1975

State v. Anderson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 28, 1975 · Pee

306 Minn. 552; 236 N.W.2d 174; 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1281 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, and Frederick S. Suhler, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant., Robins, Meshbesher, Singer & Spence and Kenneth Meshbesher, 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 1976, 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. Early (Minn. 1976)

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 of the Court

Pee Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of Hennepin County Municipal Court which rescinded an order of the commissioner of public safety revoking defendant’s driver’s license for refusal to permit chemical testing under Minn. St. 169.123. The trial court rescinded the revocation because it concluded that defendant’s refusal to submit to testing was reasonable in that he was merely following the advice of counsel. Subsequent to the filing of the trial court’s order, this court issued its opinion in State, Department of Public Safety, v. Lauzon, 302 Minn. 276, 224 N. W. 2d 156 (1974). In that case we stated that a refusal to submit to testing based upon advice given by counsel is unreasonable unless the police either misled the driver into believing that a refusal of this sort was reason*553able or made no attempt to explain to a confused driver that regardless of what his lawyer said he must permit testing or lose his license. The record on appeal indicates that the police informed defendant that if he refused to permit testing he would lose his license. There is nothing in the record to indicate that police either misled defendant or did not attempt to clear up any apparent confusion. Therefore, we must reverse the order of the trial court.

Reversed.

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