Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hanson, 543 N.W.2d 84.

49 citing documents.

Lee Michael Scheurer, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann ... Minn. 2025
Lee Michael Scheurer, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann ... Minn. 2025
As the sponsor of the bill, Representative Carruthers’s statements “on the purpose or effect of the legislation” is 13 “entitled to some weight in construing [the] statute.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Both provisions 2 “protect a criminal defendant from three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
23, 1986); (“[T]he primary purpose of the [license-revocation] law is to protect the public by removing from Minnesota’s streets and highways those who drive under the influence of alcohol.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (“The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Unite d States Constitution and the 12 Minnesota Constitution protect a criminal defendant from .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution protect a criminal defendant from three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a se cond prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense” d 84, 86 (Minn. 1996).
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
23, 1986); (stating that “the primary purpose of the [driver’s license revocation] law is to protect the public by removing from Minnesota’s streets and highways those who drive under the influence of alcohol”).
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, -90 (Minn.1996); (Peterson, J., concurring specially); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558 , 103 S.Ct.
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
See, -36 (Minn.2013) (adopting the dual-sovereignty doctrine for double-jeopardy challenges under the Minnesota Constitution); -88 (Minn.1996) (following the Supreme Court’s lead in replacing the double-jeopardy test from Ward, 448 U.S. at 248-49 , 100 S.Ct.
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In State v. Hanson, the Minnesota Supreme court adopted the “solely deterrent/retributive” test for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis, which “permits the imposition of a civil sanction that can ‘fairly be characterized as remedial.’ ” -88 (Minn.1996) (quoting United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-49 , 109 S.Ct.
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 756 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 756 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Consequently, such laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the public interest and against the private interest of the drivers involved.” (quotation omitted).
Sands v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Sands v. Commissioner of Public Safety 744 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Consequently, such laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the public interest and against the private interest of the drivers involved.” , *27 89 (Minn.1996) (quotation omitted).
State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(stating that court is not bound by higher court’s statement in dicta, but only by its holding); cf. In re Estate of Bush, 302 Minn. 188, 207 , (ascribing weight to dicta that contains strong expression of court’s opinion).
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Nelson 608 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, (Minnesota Supreme Court “decided over thirty years ago that a driver’s license revocation followed by criminal punishment does not violate any constitutional protections against double jeopardy”); (“implied consent license revocations are remedial in
State v. Dumas 587 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Dumas 587 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(“Any punitive effect is merely incidental to the statute’s overriding remedial purpose.”).
State v. Humes 581 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1998
State v. Humes 581 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1998
1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989)
Bray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 555 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, VIN: 1HD1DJL10NY510116, License No: 20438MC 555 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, VIN: 1HD1DJL10NY510116, License No: 20438MC 555 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In 1986 Mazda 626, -89 (Minn.1996).
Bray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 555 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
We are equally unpersuaded by appellant’s to argue that because revocation is a civil, not a criminal, penalty it is not covered by Pub.L.
Freeman v. RESIDENCE AT 1215 E. 21ST ST. 552 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Freeman v. RESIDENCE AT 1215 E. 21ST ST. 552 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
1892, 1902 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989)
In Re the Welfare of E.R.D. 551 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of E.R.D. 551 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-90 (Minn.1996) (civil license revocation followed by prosecution for driving under the influence does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause); McKenzie, d at 620-21 (disciplining prison inmate with placement in segregation and loss of good time credit served remedial purpose and did not bar subsequent crimina
State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
(discussing legislative amendments to DUI statute to “give it more teeth”).
City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147 546 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147 546 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
From the Minnesota Supreme Court, which applied Halper in upholding a state civil statute allowing revocation of a driver’s license after conviction for DUI.
State v. Christie 543 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
State v. Parker 543 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1996
State v. Spilde 543 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1996
City of New Richland v. VanEngelenburg 543 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1996
State v. Spilde 543 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1996
State v. Christie 543 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
City of New Richland v. VanEngelenburg 543 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1996
State v. Strom 543 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
State v. Strom 543 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996