Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 169.022 (2026)

Uniform Application

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein. Local authorities may adopt traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter; provided, that when any local ordinance regulating traffic covers the same subject for which a penalty is provided for in this chapter, then the penalty provided for violation of said local ordinance shall be identical with the penalty provided for in this chapter for the same offense.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2013 · leading case: State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 40× “Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (2004). The controversy centers, instead, on the degree to which Minneapolis's power is preempted or limited by the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act.”

State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 9× “” Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (2006). The Act does not provide owner liability for traffic light violations.”

City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (emphasis added). In Kuhlman , we concluded that "no conflict exists when an ordinance is merely additional and complementary to a state law and covers specifically what the statute covers generally.”

State v. Stallman, 519 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 169.022 and 169.04 (1992). Appellant argues that because cruising is not one of the six exceptions, Anoka does not have the authority to regulate this area.”

Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. of Duluth v. Lee, 832 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Kuhlman, when we interpreted the meaning of the term “conflict” in Minn. Stat. § 169.022 (2004) by applying the preemption doctrine.”

Stewart v. Koenig, 767 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (2008). We conclude that motor-vehicle drivers who cross a state recreational trail are “trail users” and thus subject to the trail rules, including the duty to yield the right-of-way to a trail user who is already on the treadway.”

State v. Gonzales, 483 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “But see Minn.Stat. § 169.022 (1990) (traffic regulations are to be uniform throughout the state).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.