Minn. Stat. § 171.19

State v. Hanson · 1984 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Willems v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1983 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

Winchester v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Pierce v. State · 1981 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1980 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

John Michael Kennedy v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2016 11 citations

+ 11 more citations in this opinion.

Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Constans v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2013 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Schmidt · 2005 1 citation

Next, appellant argues that licensed Minnesota drivers are adversely affected by the disparity in treatment in comparison to other states. Appellant suggests that when a Minnesota driver is convicted of DWI in South Dakota, the matter is referred to Minnesota, the driver’s Minnesota driver’s license is revoked, and the revocation can be used for enhancement; whereas, a driver from South Dakota charged with DWI in Minnesota escapes an aggravated charge because pri- or DWI convictions and license revocations from South Dakota cannot be used for enhancement in Minnesota. This argument is not persuasive because states have the right to interpret their own constitutions to grant a more expansive right to counsel than the right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 830-31. Additionally, when a Minnesota driver is convicted of DWI in South Dakota and that conviction is referred to Minnesota for license revocation, the driver is afforded an opportunity for judicial review. The driver’s license is automatically revoked. Minn. Stat. § 171.17(a) (2004). But the driver can petition for reinstatement. Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (2004).

Homan v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2003 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Igo v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2000 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Madison v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1998 37 citations

+ 37 more citations in this opinion.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

LaMusga v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Thorson v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1994 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Magoon v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1993 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Plaster v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Kohner v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Langfield v. Department of Public Safety · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Wangen v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1989 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Vang v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1988 4 citations

OPINION SHORT, Judge. Respondent's driving privileges were cancelled and denied pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 171.14 and 171.04(8) (1986) and Minn. R. 7503.1300, subpt. 2 (1987) because he had three alcohol-related driving incidents and a special review in approximately 6½ years. Respondent petitioned for reinstatement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (1986). The trial court ruled that (1) the Commissioner exceeded his authority by promulgating Minn. R. 7503.1300, subpt. 2, and (2) the challenged provision of the rule was unreasonable. The trial court reinstated respondent's driving privileges, and the Commissioner of Public Safety appeals.

OPINION SHORT, Judge. Respondent's driving privileges were cancelled and denied pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 171.14 and 171.04(8) (1986) and Minn. R. 7503.1300, subpt. 2 (1987) because he had three alcohol-related driving incidents and a special review in approximately 6½ years. Respondent petitioned for reinstatement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (1986). The trial court ruled that (1) the Commissioner exceeded his authority by promulgating Minn. R. 7503.1300, subpt. 2, and (2) the challenged provision of the rule was unreasonable. The trial court reinstated respondent's driving privileges, and the Commissioner of Public Safety appeals.

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Gardner v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1988 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Larson v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Norman v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Askildson v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Smisek v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kleven v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Saliterman v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1986 2 citations

Appellant filed a complaint in district court and made a motion that the court declare that he be permitted to take the tests necessary to qualify for the road test, and order that the Commissioner immediately issue to appellant a limited driver’s license for work purposes upon his successful completion of the tests. The trial court treated the action as a petition for reinstatement of appellant’s license under Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (1984).

Appellant filed a complaint in district court and made a motion that the court declare that he be permitted to take the tests necessary to qualify for the road test, and order that the Commissioner immediately issue to appellant a limited driver’s license for work purposes upon his successful completion of the tests. The trial court treated the action as a petition for reinstatement of appellant’s license under Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (1984).

Stavlo v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

McShane v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Phillippe v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1985 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Mechtel v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1985 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Schultz v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1985 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Benson v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Antl v. State, Department of Public Safety · 1984 1 citation

Minn. Stat. § 171.19 (1982) provides that the trial court is to determine “whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to revocation, suspension, cancellation, or refusal of license, under the provisions of this chapter.” Thus, if the evidence disclosed in the course of litigation shows that the petitioner is not entitled to driving privileges for some reason other than the one initially relied upon by the Commissioner of Public Safety, the petition must be denied.

Commissioner of Public Safety v. Barlow · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Thorud v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Qualley v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.