Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 169.1217 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

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

[Repealed, 2000 c 478 art 2 s 8]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1996–2012 · leading case: Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSG, 622 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, VIN No. 2MEBP95F9CX644211, License No. MN 225 NSG, 622 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 51× “At issue in this case is the question of who must pay storage fees when the police seize and store a vehicle pursuant to a vehicle forfeiture statute, Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1998), 1 where the vehicle is ultimately returned to the owner after a judicial forfeiture determination.”

City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford Excursion VIN 1FMNU43S2YEA74156, 622 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 38× “1 Because Barnes had two prior impaired driving convictions or license revocations within five years of the October 19,1999, arrest, his vehicle was seized pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169.1217, subd. 2 (1998). Subsequently, the state began forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Minn.”

City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, License No. POC147, 546 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 44× “The trial court concluded that forfeiture of the vehicle used by Lisa Ann Pishney while committing an aggravated DWI constituted a second punishment under the Minnesota and Federal Double Jeopardy Clauses because she had previously been convicted and sentenced for that…”

Hawes v. 1997 Jeep Wrangler, Vin No. 1J4FY29POVP493248, License No. 874 PDG, 602 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 55× “[*] The State of Minnesota challenges both the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and its sua sponte grant of judgment in favor of respondent in this vehicle forfeiture proceeding under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1998). The district court determined that…”

Lukkason v. 1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 22× “On appeal from summary judgment, William John Lukkason challenges the forfeiture of his vehicle under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1998). The district court determined that forfeiture of the vehicle, used in committing appellant’s third DWI offense within five years, did not violate…”

City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, VIN: 1HD1DJL10NY510116, License No: 20438MC, 555 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “As such, claimant’s motorcycle was subject to forfeiture under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1994 & Supp.1995).”

Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384, 606 N.W.2d 455 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 20× “See Minn.Stat. § 169.1217, subd. 7(1998). We affirm.”

Adkins v. 1979 Midas R.V., 546 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 19× “The Rochester city attorney appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment in a forfeiture action against respondent motor vehicle, arguing that there are no issues of material fact and that the district court erred by concluding that forfeiture under Minn.Stat. §…”

Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, Vin 2MEBP95F9CX644211 License No. MN 225 NSG, 609 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 26× “Because the seizing agency acquires all “right, title, and interest” in the vehicle under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217, subd. 3 (1998), appellant contends the City of Centerville is responsible for the towing and storage fees.”

Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 755 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “The vehicle was seized under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 (1998), which provided that the owner of a seized vehicle could recover possession of the vehicle before the forfeiture proceeding by posting bond.”

Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445, 792 N.W.2d 454 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “1996 Mercury Marquis, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the issue of storage and towing fees when a court orders the return of a vehicle seized for a DWI-related forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169.1217 (1998). 3 622 N.W.”

Schug v. Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars & Fifty Cents in U.S. Currency, 669 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Similarly, Minnesota courts have repeatedly held that the legislature intended vehicle forfeiture under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 2 to serve the important, non-punitive, remedial goal of enhancing public safety by separating repeat intoxicated drivers from the instrumentality used…”

Show all 17 citing cases →

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.