Any person whose driver's license has been refused, revoked, suspended, canceled, or disqualified by the commissioner, except where the license is revoked or disqualified under section 169A.52, 171.177, or 171.186, or whose driver's license revocation, suspension, or cancellation period has been extended by the commissioner based on a violation of the ignition interlock program guidelines, may file a petition for a hearing in the matter in the district court in the county wherein such person shall reside and, in the case of a nonresident, in the district court in any county, and such court is hereby vested with jurisdiction, and it shall be its duty, to set the matter for hearing upon 15 days' written notice to the commissioner, and thereupon to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to revocation, suspension, cancellation, disqualification, or refusal of license, or whether the commissioner's extension determination is valid or should be modified, and shall render judgment accordingly. The petition for hearing must either be filed within 180 days of the effective date of the order of revocation, suspension, cancellation, disqualification, or refusal to license, or of the date on the commissioner's notice of extension, or be filed before expiration of the withdrawal period, whichever occurs first. The petition shall be heard by the court without a jury and may be heard in or out of term. The commissioner may appear in person, or by agents or representatives, and may present evidence upon the hearing by affidavit personally, by agents, or by representatives. The petitioner may present evidence by affidavit, except that the petitioner must be present in person at such hearing for the purpose of cross-examination. In the event the department shall be sustained in these proceedings, the petitioner shall have no further right to make further petition to any court for the purpose of obtaining a driver's license until after the expiration of one year after the date of such hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Madison v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 585 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 102× “In December 1996, Madison was a licensed driver subject to a restriction that any use of alcohol would invalidate his license.”
Willems v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 333 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 25× “Respondent David Lewis Willems filed a petition for a hearing to reinstate his driver's license under Minn.Stat. § 171.19 (1980) after his license had been revoked pursuant to Minn.”
McIntee v. State, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 279 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 14× “5, 6, was the exclusive remedy available and therefore the general provisions of § 171.19 for review of license revocations were not available to Mclntee.”
Elzie v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 298 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 8× “The grounds recited for dismissal were that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted because the allegations of lack of due process and of illegal acts by the Commissioner were “bare allegations wholly without substance” and because two of the…”
Wangen v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 437 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 16× “" Minn.Stat. § 171.19. A decision of whether to reinstate a person's driver's license is a recurring matter.”
State v. Hanson, 356 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 12× “5 (1980), or by petitioning for reinstatement, Minn.Stat. § 171.19 (1980); McIntee v. State, Dept.”
Gardner v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 423 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “The appellant petitioned for reinstatement pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 171.19 (1986). He denied drinking any alcohol the night in question or any time since completing rehabilitation, and stated he had numerous witnesses who would testify he did not consume any alcohol that night.”
Mechtel v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 373 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 171.19, respondent petitioned the district court for review of the Commissioner’s finding.”
Vang v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 432 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “Respondent petitioned for reinstatement pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 171.19 (1986). The trial court ruled that (1) the Commissioner exceeded his authority by promulgating Minn.”
Askildson v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 403 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “14 allows the commissioner to “cancel the driver’s license of any person who, at the time of the cancellation, would not have been entitled to receive a license under the provisions of section 171.”
Thorson v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 519 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The district court denied and dismissed appellant’s petition for reinstatement under Minn.Stat. § 171.19. We affirm. *492 FACTS In February, 1989, Charles Dean Thor-son’s.”
Thorud v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 349 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Although the result seems harsh in the case at bar, since it was not the fault of respondent that the hearing request which he had left with his attorney was not forwarded to the Commissioner of Public Safety within the 30-day period, the district court was without jurisdiction…”
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.