Palme v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Appellant Thomas Paul Palme challenges the district court order sustaining the revocation of his driver’s license for refusal to submit to alcohol testing, arguing that he should have been allowed to cure his refusal and that his right to counsel was not vindicated. We affirm.
FACTS
The facts are generally undisputed. On August 20, 1994, at approximately 8:30 p.m., appellant Thomas Paul Palme was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was thereupon transported to the police station. After the arresting officer read Palme the implied consent advisory, Palme…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Friedman v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- State v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Pruitt v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor VehiclesAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
- Kuhn v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Busch v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Lewis v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- Peter Alan Krech v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas KarnowskiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Travis ElledgeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015