Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Palmer, 191 N.W.2d 188.

28 citing documents.

State v. Webster 642 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Webster 642 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 305-07 , -91 (1971), a divided Minnesota Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that a driver has a right under the Sixth Amendment and the corresponding provision of the Minnesota Constitution to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to provide a breath sample.
Palme v. Commissioner of Public Safety 541 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Palme v. Commissioner of Public Safety 541 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
at 579-80 (citing State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308 , and State, Dep’t of Pub.
Parsons v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Parsons v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308 , Schultz v. Commissioner of Pub.
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
The respondent relies on State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , where we held that, under the Minnesota Constitution, the right to counsel does not extend to a DWI license revocation because of the civil or administrative nature of the proceeding.
Schultz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 447 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schultz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 447 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
It quoted State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1971), for the proposition that “the testing officers should not be required ‘to await the driver’s convenience of a different time or place’ to submit to the statutory requirement.” This court addressed the issue of whether a person could withdraw a refusal most recently in Mossak v.
Mossak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 435 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mossak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 435 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court quoted with approval a trial judge’s observation that a refusal cannot be avoided by a later offer to take a test “where testing equipment is not readily available and at a time the request or offer is made to an officer not qualified to give such tests.” State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“[T]he testing officers should not be required ‘to await the driver’s convenience of a different time or place’ to submit to the statutory requirement.” State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1972) (citation omitted), quoted in Nyflot, d at 517 n. 4.
Gabrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gabrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1971).
Torland v. Commissioner of Public Safety 390 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Torland v. Commissioner of Public Safety 390 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, Dept. of Public Safety v. Early, 310 Minn. 428 , State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1971) (“the testing officers should not be required ‘to await the driver’s convenience of a different time or place’ to submit to the statutory requirement.”) Id.
Smith v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Smith v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The officers “should not be required ‘to await the driver’s convenience of a different time or place’ to submit to the statutory requirement [of testing].” State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1971), ( , 517 n.4 (Minn.1985)).
Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State, Dept. of Public Safety v. Early, 310 Minn. 428 , State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 308-09 , -92 (1971) (“the testing officers should not be required ‘to await the driver’s convenience of a different time or place’ to submit to the statutory requirement.”) n. 4 (Minn.) appeal dismissed, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct.
Nyflot v. Commissioner of Public Safety 369 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1985
Nyflot v. Commissioner of Public Safety 369 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1985
We first addressed the issue-of right to counsel in implied consent cases in State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , and held that a driver has no constitutional right to consult with counsel before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.
Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety 247 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1976
Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety 247 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1976
In asserting such a right, he asks us to overrule our decision in State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , in which we held that a driver does not have a constitutional right to consult with counsel before deciding whether to accede to an officer’s request to submit to a chemical test.
State, Department of Highways v. Beckey 192 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1971
State, Department of Highways v. Beckey 192 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1971
State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302