Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 169.126 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 2000 c 478 art 2 s 8]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 5 cases, 1979–1988 · leading case: In Re Complaint Concerning Judge McDonough, 296 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Complaint Concerning Judge McDonough, 296 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 6× “Since the effective date of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.126, in cases of the class described in the preceding paragraph, Respondent has consistently failed and refused, [ and continues to fail and refuse ]* to conduct pre-sentence investigations of the defendants, all in…”

Novak v. Kirby, 287 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 8× “The enactment of the alcohol problem assessment provision supports our view that the legislature granted the courts additional authority to assume a more treatment-oriented posture.”

Vang v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 432 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “fety shall revoke the driver's license of a person convicted of violating this section or an ordinance in conformity with it as follows: (a) First offense: not less than 30 days; (b) Second offense in less than five years: not less than 90 days and until the court has certified…”

State v. Favre, 428 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “A reckless driving conviction could have the same effect on mandatory alcoholism screening for subsequent offenses under Minn.Stat. § 169.126, subd. 1(b). In addition, even if the nonjudicial DWI “probably would have been decertified,” it was appropriately considered, along with…”

In Re Allegations & Complaint Concerning Johnson, 355 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1984). “That in several instances respondent has failed to order alcohol problem assessments in alcohol-related cases, in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169.126. e. That in several instances respondent has violated Minnesota Statute § 169.”

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.