Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 305 N.W.2d 786.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (comparing elements of Minnesota and Colorado DWI statutes); (comparing elements of Minneosta and Ohio DWI statutes).
Lauren Ann Hoffman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Stewart Edward Underhill, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Anderson v. State, Department of Public Safety, the supreme court considered the case of a Minnesota resident who petitioned a district court to challenge the revocation of his driver’s license based on his Colorado conviction of the offense of “driving while ability impaired.” Id.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
For instance, in Anderson v. State, Department of Public Safety & Department of Transportation , we considered whether the Commissioner of Public Safety had properly revoked a driver’s license after “receiving a record of the driver’s conviction of ‘an offense in another state which, if committed in th is state, would be grounds for the revocation of the driver’s license.’ ” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 171.17(7) (1980)).
Justin Robert Price, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Safety , (emphasis in original) .
Dempski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 520 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Dempski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 520 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Safety, (whether offense committed in Colorado justifies revocation of Minnesota driver’s license depends on elements of offense, not quantum of evidence necessary to prove violation); State v. Novak, 107 Wis.2d 31 , (adjudication under Wis.Stat.
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
It includes “driving a motor vehicle while ability or capacity to drive is impaired by alcohol.” (emphasis omitted).
Recker v. State, Department of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Recker v. State, Department of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stark 363 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1985
State v. Stark 363 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1985
In Anderson v. State, Department of Public Safety, we stated: Our cases have not focused on what is meant by the phrase “under the influence of alcohol.” However, courts in other states having statutes of similar phraseology and purpose have generally interpreted the phrase to cover driving by a person who has drunk enough liquor so that his capacity
State v. Geyer 355 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Geyer 355 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
: Without intending to fully define what conduct is covered by the phrase ‘driving while under the influence’ of alcohol, we merely conclude that it was meant to include the act of driving a motor vehicle while ability or capacity to drive is impaired by alcohol.
Byrd v. Commissioner of Public Safety 348 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Byrd v. Commissioner of Public Safety 348 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Barutt 312 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1981
State v. Barutt 312 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1981
In Anderson v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, we held that revocation of a Minnesota driver’s license is proper under section 171.17(7) for a DWI offense in another state which, if committed in this state, would be ground for revocation of the driver’s license.