1. It is a class B misdemeanor for an individual: a. To display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in possession any canceled, revoked, fictitious, or fraudulently altered operator's license or nondriver photo identification card; b. To lend that individual's operator's license or nondriver photo identification card to any other individual or knowingly permit the use of that individual's operator's license or nondriver photo identification card by another individual; c. To display or represent as an individual's own any operator's license or nondriver photo identification card not issued to that individual; d. To fail or refuse to surrender to the director upon demand any operator's license or nondriver photo identification card that has been suspended, revoked, or canceled; e. To permit any unlawful use of an operator's license or nondriver photo identification card issued to that individual; or f. To use a false or fictitious name in any application for an operator's license or nondriver photo identification card or to knowingly make a false statement or to conceal a material fact or otherwise commit a fraud in the application.
2. Within five days of receiving a record of conviction or other satisfactory evidence of the violation of this section, the director shall revoke the individual's operator's license or nondriver photo identification card. The director may set the period of revocation, not to exceed six months.
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994). · cites it 10ד” DOT concedes that there is no record evidence that these licensees were convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Section 39-06-40, N.D.C.C., 2 but argues that there was “other satisfactory evidence” of violations to support suspension of their driver’s licenses.”
State v. Lanctot, 1998 ND 216, 587 N.W.2d 568. · cites it 2ד[¶ 3] Lanctot was charged with unlawful use of a fictitious license in violation of *570 N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40(1), and he moved to suppress the evidence seized from his billfold.”
State v. Richter, 2023 ND 221, 997 N.W.2d 827. · cites it 10דWe affirm, concluding N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 makes it a crime to display a fictitious license.”
State v. Richter, 2023 ND 221, 997 N.W.2d 827. · cites it 10דWe affirm, concluding N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 makes it a crime to display a fictitious license.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-40(1): 2 cases
State v. Lanctot, 1998 ND 216, 587 N.W.2d 568. “[¶ 3] Lanctot was charged with unlawful use of a fictitious license in violation of *570 N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40(1), and he moved to suppress the evidence seized from his billfold.”
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994). “” DOT concedes that there is no record evidence that these licensees were convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Section 39-06-40, N.D.C.C., 2 but argues that there was “other satisfactory evidence” of violations to support suspension of their driver’s licenses.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-40(3): 1 case
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994). “” DOT concedes that there is no record evidence that these licensees were convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Section 39-06-40, N.D.C.C., 2 but argues that there was “other satisfactory evidence” of violations to support suspension of their driver’s licenses.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-40(7): 1 case
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994). “” DOT concedes that there is no record evidence that these licensees were convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in Section 39-06-40, N.D.C.C., 2 but argues that there was “other satisfactory evidence” of violations to support suspension of their driver’s licenses.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-40(a): 2 cases
State v. Richter, 2023 ND 221, 997 N.W.2d 827. “We affirm, concluding N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 makes it a crime to display a fictitious license.”
State v. Richter, 2023 ND 221, 997 N.W.2d 827. “We affirm, concluding N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 makes it a crime to display a fictitious license.”
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.