Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Disciplinary Action Against Pitzele, 740 N.W.2d 355.

16 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ava Thadette Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As a result, this court has held that these “prerequisites to the administration of a chemical test are incorporated into, and are elements of the [test]-refusal statute.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Alejondro Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
, A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(b), 2; rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2 (2018); (holding that the advisory is an element of the crime), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2 (2018) (incorporating sections 169A.51, .52 ); State v. Ouellette , 60 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that prerequisites for testing under section 169A.51 are elements of criminal test refusal), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Jeffrey Paul Nieland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority i s waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” 10 (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 (incorporating §§ 169A.51 and .52); State v. Ouellette , (holding that prerequisites for testing under § 169A.51 are elements of criminal test refusal), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(declining to reach issue in absence of adequate briefing); (holding that assignment of error in brief based on “mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived”).
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 355, 361 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 355, 361 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a reviewing court generally considers only issues presented to and decided by the district court); d 355, 361 (Minn. App. 2007) (“Assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (Quotation omitted.)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting redundancy in test-refusal instruction between probable cause in first element and lawful arrest in second element), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-60 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. 6 Krosch, (stating that claims in a pro se supplemental brief are waived if the brief contains no argument or citation to legal authority supporting the claims).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See, (stating officer testified that he read the implied-consent advisory and a copy of the advisory was admitted into evidence and holding in refusal-to-test charge that state must prove defendant was lawfully arrested and implied-consent advisory was read to him), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-61 (Minn.App.2007), pet.