Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 297D.09 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

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

MS 2024 [Repealed, 1Sp2025 c 13 art 8 s 22]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 10× “1(2) (2010) (count 1); failure to affix tax stamps to a controlled substance, Minn.Stat. § 297D.09, subd. la (2010) (count 2); two counts of sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, Minn.”

State v. Bauer, 776 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “1(2), 3(a) (2004) (sale of ecstasy); distribution of a controlled-substance without affixed tax stamps, a violation of Minn.Stat. § 297D.09, subd. la (2004); two counts of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, a violation of Minn.”

State v. Frazier, 649 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 4× “[4] The RICO statute defines criminal act as: [C]onduct constituting, or a conspiracy or attempt to commit, a felony violation of chapter 152, or a felony violation of section 297D.09; 299F.79; 299F.80; 299F.82; 609.”

State v. Smith, 448 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Timothy Scott Smith appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and failure to affix tax stamps pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 297D.09 (1988). We affirm. FACTS Shortly after midnight on September 29, 1988, Itasca County Deputy…”

Comm'r v. Fort, 479 N.W.2d 43 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 4× “6 Although in nature a civil proceeding, criminal sanctions are contemplated under Minn. Stat. § 297D.09, subd. la (1990). In this case, the facts introduced to show respondent’s joint constructive possession of the controlled substance are undisputed.”

Sisson v. Triplett, 428 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 2× “Although chapter 297D does not provide immunity to a dealer from criminal prosecution, any information which is supplied to the Department of Revenue cannot be disclosed and its use in a criminal proceeding is barred.”

State v. Darnall, 498 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “3 (1992) and failure to affix tax stamps to controlled substances in violation of Minn.Stat. § 297D.09, subd. la (1992). After an omnibus hearing, the district court suppressed evidence found in the search of Darnall’s knapsack, granted Dar-nall’s motion to dismiss the counts in…”

State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez (Minn. 2026). · cites it 2× “2(a)(1); (3) failure to affix a tax stamp, Minn. Stat. § 297D.09, subd. 1a (2022); and (4) conspiracy to commit a first-degree controlled substance crime, Minn.”

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.