(a) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main-traveled part of the highway when it is practical to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every event a clear and unobstructed width of at least 20 feet of such part of the highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.
(b) This section shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or improved or main-traveled portion of a highway in such a manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving such disabled vehicle in such position.
(c) This section shall not apply to the driver of a school bus stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school child or school children provided the school bus is equipped and identified as provided in sections 169.441 and 169.442, subdivision 1, and is displaying the flashing red lamps and stop arm required therein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1945–2013 · leading case:
State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).
State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 169.32(a) (2006). Moreover, an officer is authorized to “move such vehicle, or require the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle to move the same, to a position off the paved or improved or main traveled part of such highway,” Minn.”
Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 513 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 169.32(a). So, Sherbrooke violated no traffic regulation when he stopped to make the telephone call.”
Medved v. Doolittle, 19 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1945).
· cites it 2× “1941, § 169.32 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 2720-217), and that flares were set out on the night of the 21st as required by § 169.”
Kedrowski v. Czech, 69 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1955).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff, in the instant case, contends that there was reasonable excuse for being on what was the wrong portion of the highway under § 169.32. The first paragraph of that section reads as follows: “Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person…”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 388 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 169.32 (1984) provides in part that: Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved * * * part of the highway when it is practical to…”
Alex v. Jozelich, 78 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1956).
· cites it 4× “” *30 It is the contention of defendant that § 169.32 is not applicable here and that in any event under the facts presented its violation would not constitute negligence as a matter of law.”
State v. Rohde, 839 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The “purpose” section of the order provides that “[ajuthority to impound motor vehicles is given by Minnesota Statute Section 169.32, 169.33, 169.041, 168B, *765 169.”
Shastid v. Shue, 77 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1956).
· cites it 2× “It is not beyond doubt that the Shue and Williamson units were so disabled and especially the latter that they found it impossible to drive off the main traveled portion of the highway and thus were guilty of prima facie evidence of negligence in violation of § 169.32. This…”
State v. Schaffer, 378 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “2 (1984) and illegal stopping, standing or parking, Minn. Stat. § 169.32 (1984). On appeal he claims evidentiary rulings were erroneous requiring a new trial.”
Sowada v. Motzko, 98 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 1959).
“” According to plaintiffs the effect of this instruction was to inform the jury that the negligence which might be established as to the conduct of Sowada could be imputed to Marsolek and that they could thus deny recovery to him.”
Leman v. Stand. Oil Co., 57 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1953).
“n of the statute in failing to leave twenty feet of the traveled portion of the highway opposite the parked truck, but if you further find such parking was excusable or justifiable under all the facts and circumstances as brought out in the evidence, then said violation of said…”
Staloch v. Belsaas, 136 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. 1965).
“3, which requires drivers to drive at reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or where special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians; or in its refusal to instruct with respect to § 169.32, which prohibits stopping any vehicle upon the paved or improved…”
— Minn. Stat. § 169.32(a) — 2 cases
State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).
“” Minn.Stat. § 169.32(a) (2006). Moreover, an officer is authorized to “move such vehicle, or require the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle to move the same, to a position off the paved or improved or main traveled part of such highway,” Minn.”
Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 513 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. § 169.32(a). So, Sherbrooke violated no traffic regulation when he stopped to make the telephone call.”
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.