Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wiltgen, 737 N.W.2d 561.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
21(a)(1) (2024); (holding that an implied-consent license revocation that has not been judicially reviewed cannot be used to enhance a DWI offense).
Ryan Grant, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 561, 570–71 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subds.
Christopher Anthony Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A statute is only ambiguous when it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” ().
Taquinia Kokela Douglas, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Wiltgen , –71 (Minn. 2007); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020) (directing courts to look only to “the words of a law in their application to an ex isting situation” when the words are clear and unambiguous).
Joseph Lawrence Weber, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In Riehm, d 561, 569 (Minn. 2007), that a delayed hearing “would not violate due process .
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
571 (Minn. 2007) (discussing Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd.
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
State v. Wiltgen , , 570 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Burbach , , 487 n.1 (Minn. 2005) ; see State v. Wiltgen , , 566 n.3 (Minn. 2007) (noting that the suppression of evidence *10 used to enhance a driving-while-impaired charge satisfied the critical-impact requirement because it directly led to the dismissal of the enhanced charge).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety 830 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Accordingly, our review is de novo.”
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes 823 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 2012
Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes 823 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 2012
(recognizing under the third Mathews factor that the State has a compelling interest in highway safety).
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
-71 (Minn.2007); Loge, d at 155 .
Business Bank v. Hanson 769 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2009
Business Bank v. Hanson 769 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2009
State v. Omwega 769 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Omwega 769 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
And when we decided Wiltgen, we held, based on Goharbawang , “that the availability of a statutory mechanism for judicial review of the revocation satisfied due process where Wiltgen ‘affirmatively procured a collateral stay’ and took no action to advance the implied consent review petition to the hearing stage.” d at 565 ( WL 1320594 , at *3-*4 (Minn.App.
Al Franken v. Pawlenty 762 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2009
Al Franken v. Pawlenty 762 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2009
-71 (Minn.2007) (sections of the same statute should be construed together).
Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208 762 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208 762 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The state argues that, it was error for the district court to conclude that respondent’s due-process rights would be violated by the use of prior administrative license revocations as an aggravating factor in a civil forfeiture proceeding when those revocations were once the subject of petitions for judicial review but where th
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
*875 -68 (Minn.2007) (stating in dictum that district court’s policy of postponing implied-consent hearings until disposition in related criminal cases would not violate due-process rights if stay was issued pending hearing).
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
State v. Engle 743 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2008
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007