Opinion · California Supreme Court Opinions

SMITH v. McCARTHY, 54 Cal.2d 863 (1960)

353 P.2d 293

Type
Opinion
Court
California Supreme Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
California
Date
1960-06-02
Topic
general

SMITH v. McCARTHY, 54 Cal.2d 863 (1960) 353 P.2d 293, 5 Cal.Rptr. 685 ROBERT COLLINS SMITH, Petitioner, v. ROBERT McCARTHY, as Director of MotorVehicles, Respondent. Docket No. L.A. 25806.Supreme Court of California.In Bank.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SMITH v. McCARTHY, 54 Cal.2d 863 (1960). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SMITH v. McCARTHY,54 Cal.2d 863(1960)
353 P.2d 293,5 Cal.Rptr. 685
ROBERT COLLINS SMITH, Petitioner, v. ROBERT McCARTHY, as Director of Motor
Vehicles, Respondent.
Docket No. L.A. 25806.
Supreme Court of California.
In Bank.
June 2, 1960.
MEMORANDUM CASES
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.
THE COURT.

This proceeding presents the same problem as that disposed of inHoughv.McCarthy, ante,p. 273 [5 Cal.Rptr. 668,353 P.2d 276], andSauerv.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.
PETERS, J.
I dissent.

This case involves the same problem as that involved inHoughv.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.
SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.
Without suggesting accord with the views of the majority inHoughv.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.Page 864