Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 126 N.W.2d 778.

56 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And our supreme court has explained that “[t]he modern tendency is to be more liberal in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officers in order to facilitate the administration of laws as the complexity of economic and governmental conditions increase.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, -81 (Minn. 1964).
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 The caselaw is relevant because, in Minnesota, operating a motor vehicle “is in the nature of a license or privilege,” which “depends upon compliance with conditions prescribed by law.” Anderson v. State, Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
We have said that operating a motor vehicle upon the pub-lie highways "is in the nature of a license or privilege,” and that the enjoyment of that privilege "depends upon compliance with conditions prescribed by law.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 765 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The modern tendency is to be more liberal in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officers in order to facilitate the administration of laws as the complexity of economic and governmental conditions increase.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-12 , -81 (1964) (footnote omitted).
State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Our supreme court has long recognized that driving on state highways is a “license or privilege.” Anderson v. Comm’r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317
Larson v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1998
Larson v. Commissioner of Revenue 581 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1998
See, e.g., Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317 , (holding that commissioner could suspend driver’s, license prior to hearing in district court).
State Department of Labor & Industry Ex Rel. Special Compensation Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. 555 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State Department of Labor & Industry Ex Rel. Special Compensation Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. 555 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The supreme court has indicated that a legislative delegation of discretion to an administrative officer may be upheld absent specific standards in a statute where the statute “relates to the administration of a police regulation which is necessary to protect the general health, welfare, and safety of the public.” Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-12 , -81 (1964).
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Press v. City of Minneapolis 553 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311
State v. Hanson 543 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1996
State v. Hanson 543 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1996
Anderson v. Commissioner of Hwys., 267 Minn. 308, 316-17 , -84 (1964).
Langfield v. Department of Public Safety 449 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Langfield v. Department of Public Safety 449 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 317
Vang v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Askildson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 403 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Askildson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 403 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311
State v. Pilla 380 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Criticized State v. Pilla 380 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311
Schumann v. State, Department of Public Safety 367 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schumann v. State, Department of Public Safety 367 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Sentencing Guidelines, however, do hot apply to the Commissioner’s determinations on driving privileges, which are not considered penal in nature but an “exercise of the police power for the protection of the public.” Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 316-17 , -84 (1964).
King v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
King v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 316-17 , -84 (1964).
Beyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Beyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308
Benson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Benson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-312 , -781 (1964).
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
MINN. ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH. v. Printy 351 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
olitan Airports Comm'n, 223 Minn. 175, 188-91 , -28 (1947)), a local housing and redevelopment authority ( Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221, 247-50 , ), a seaway port authority ( Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 199-200 , -53 (1958)), the Commissioner of Highways ( Anderson v. Comm'r of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-14 , -83 (1964) (determining whether an individual was a "habitual violator" of the traffic laws)), and the PCA ( Minnesota Pollution Control
State v. Suter 346 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Suter 346 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
Manufactured Housing Institute v. Pettersen 347 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1984
In construing this delegation, we are mindful that “[t]he modern tendency is to be more liberal in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officers in order to facilitate the administration of laws as the complexity of economic and governmental conditions increase.” Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 311-12 , -81 (1964).
State v. Forge 262 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
State v. Forge 262 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1977
Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308 , , 9 A.L.R.3d 746 (1964); Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101
State v. King 257 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1977
State v. King 257 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1977
City of Minneapolis v. Krebes, 303 Minn. 219 , Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308 , , 9 A.L.R.3d 746 (1964).
City of Minneapolis v. Krebes 226 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1975
City of Minneapolis v. Krebes 226 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1975
In Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308 , this court noted that the power of discretion need not always be accompanied by precise rules of action.
Daly v. State, Department of Highways 207 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1973
Daly v. State, Department of Highways 207 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1973
See, Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by