Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 202 N.W.2d 878.

76 citing documents.

Musgjerd v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42 , the supreme court held: Reasonable and probable grounds justifying an officer in requesting an individual to take a test for driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverage under the implied-consent law exists whenever there are facts and circumstances known to the officer whi
Foster v. Commissioner of Public Safety 381 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Foster v. Commissioner of Public Safety 381 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42 , -81 (1972).
Edwards v. Commissioner of Public Safety 381 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Edwards v. Commissioner of Public Safety 381 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Bohlig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bohlig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42 , -81 (1972).
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42 , -81 (1972).
Graham v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Graham v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Kozak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Commissioner of Public Safety 359 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38 , holds directly contrary to appellant’s position.
Hewitt v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hewitt v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
For implied consent testing based on conditions other than arrest appellant’s argument conflicts with the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38
Pan v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Pan v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
6 (Supp.1983) In State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38 , an implied consent case, *547 the Minnesota Supreme Court explained the statute as follows: The patrolman didn’t need to observe the defendant in the act of driving or operating the vehicle to request a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood.
State, Department of Public Safety v. Rice 323 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1982
State, Department of Public Safety v. Rice 323 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1982
In a subsequent license revocation case, State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42 , there is dictum suggesting that Cormican might control in the factual context we have here, so the district court appeal panel cannot be faulted for its decision.
State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski 308 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1981
State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski 308 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1981
Such a conclusion also finds support in State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38