Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sigfrinius v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 378 N.W.2d 124.

26 citing documents.

Brian Thomas Hunter, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Robert Daniel Mesenburg v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert Daniel Mesenburg v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
we concluded that a refusal occurred because the appellant verbally agreed to a breath test but did not remove a breath mint from his mouth despite being told to do so five or six times.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Brian Allen Platt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety , (holding that a driver’s conduct frustrates administration of the test where his conduct is “calculated to avoid any ‘suspension’ of his license ”).
Kevin Virgil Hedtke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Raymond Scott Henry v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Raymond Scott Henry v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jack Kenneth Pence v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jack Kenneth Pence v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Jerome Simons v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Jerome Simons v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, d 124, 127 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that a driver’s act of putting a breath mint in his mouth constituted a refusal to test when he was advised several times to remove it, and the district court found that his actions were calculated to avoid license suspension).
Busch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 614 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Busch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 614 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Safety, (driver’s actions constituted a refusal to test, in case where driver put breath mint in his mouth and was advised five to six times to remove it, and trial court found driver’s actions were calculated to avoid suspension of license).
Frost v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Frost v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“A driver has a duty to comply reasonably with the administration of a test, and failure to do so constitutes a refusal.”
Gabrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gabrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fisher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 389 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fisher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 389 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“A driver has a duty to comply reasonably with the administration of a test, and failure to do so constitutes a refusal.”
Genia v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Genia v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 379 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
this court found the failure of a driver to remove breath mints from his mouth was an attempt to frustrate the administration of the breath test and therefore a refusal.