From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. McCarthy

Supreme Court of California
Jun 2, 1960
54 Cal.2d 863 (Cal. 1960)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 25806.

June 2, 1960.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel the Director of Motor Vehicles to set aside an order of suspension of petitioner's driving license following a conviction of misdemeanor drunk driving. Writ denied.

Robert J. North for Petitioner.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, E.G. Funke, Assistant Attorney General, Warren H. Deering and Arthur de Goede, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.


MEMORANDUM CASES


THE COURT.

This proceeding presents the same problem as that disposed of in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], and Sauer v. McCarthy, ante, p. 295 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 682, 353 P.2d 290], decided this day, and those decisions are controlling here.

The alternative writ of mandate is discharged, and a peremptory writ is denied.


I dissent.

This case involves the same problem as that involved in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273, decided this date. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in that case, ante, p. 287 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], it is my opinion that the writ of mandate should issue ordering the director to set aside petitioner's order of suspension and to grant him the hearing provided by law.


Without suggesting accord with the views of the majority in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 273 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], in other respects, I dissent because I am of the opinion that petitioner has been denied the hearing to which he is entitled by law.

McComb, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Smith v. McCarthy

Supreme Court of California
Jun 2, 1960
54 Cal.2d 863 (Cal. 1960)
Case details for

Smith v. McCarthy

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT COLLINS SMITH, Petitioner, v. ROBERT McCARTHY, as Director of Motor…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 2, 1960

Citations

54 Cal.2d 863 (Cal. 1960)
5 Cal. Rptr. 685
353 P.2d 293

Citing Cases

People v. Hamilton

At a very early date this state adopted the rule set forth in the instructions ( People v. Miller, 121 Cal.…