State v. Mayard
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Staples v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- State v. PooleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. PooleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- State v. WetschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. FairchildCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. CoauetteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- State v. CoauetteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999