SMITH v. McCARTHY (1960)

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Robert Collins SMITH, Petitioner, v. Robert McCARTHY, as Director of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

L. A. 25806.

Decided: June 02, 1960

Robert J. North, Camarillo, for petitioner. Stanley Mosk Atty. Gen., E. C. Funke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Warren H. Deering and Arthur deGoede, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

This proceeding presents the same problem as that disposed of in Hough v. McCarthy, 5 Cal.Rptr. 668, and Sauer v. McCarthy, 5 Cal.Rptr. 682 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, 5 Cal.Rptr. 668. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in that case, 5 Cal.Rptr. at page 677, 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, 5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law