Legal Opinion

State v. Mayard

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 13, 1998No. C3-97-597PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of her conviction for violating Minn.Stat. § 169.791. Because the stipulated facts establish a violation of the statute, we affirm.

FACTS

The parties submitted this case to the court on stipulated facts. On June 27, 1996, appellant Elsie Mayard was involved in a traffic accident and was ticketed for failing to provide proof of insurance. Within the statutory timeframe, appellant provided the district court administrator with a document showing insurance coverage from January 1, 1996, until July 5, 1996. At trial the state established that, despite…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Staples v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. State v. PooleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  3. State v. PooleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  4. State v. WetschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  5. State v. FairchildCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. CoauetteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  2. State v. CoauetteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API