Rios v. Cozens
FEDERICO RIOS, a Minor, Etc., Petitioner, v. ROBERT C. COZENS, as Director, Etc., Et Al., Respondents
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
*455 Opinion THE COURT.
The Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 1973, issued its judgment and mandate that the judgment of this court be vacated and the cause be remanded to us for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.
The opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reported at 410 U.S. 425 [35 L.Ed.2d 398, 93 S.Ct. 1019], states in part that “[w]e are unable to determine . . . whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both .... We therefore grant the State of California’s petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California, and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. [Citations.]”
Pursuant to the mandate hereinabove quoted we have reexamined our opinion in the subject case (reported at 7 Cal.3d 792 [103 Cal.Rptr. 299, 499 P.2d 979]) and certify that we relied upon both the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 13, of the California Constitution, and that, accordingly, the latter provision furnished an independent ground to support the result we reached in that opinion. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter or amend our prior decision, we reiterate and reinstate that decision in its entirety.
Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondents to revoke the order suspending petitioner’s license and to provide petitioner, upon due notice, a hearing on the suspension of his license.
Cites, in this corpus
- Rios v. Cozens Sac. 7916 · 1972-08-15
Cited by
- Andrade v. Purviance CA1/1 A161331 · 2021-09-23
- Berjikian v. Franchise Tax Board CA2/7 B252427 · 2015-01-12
- Menge v. Reed No. A089133 · 2000-11-16
- Honsickle v. Superior Court B121554 · 1999-01-29
- Love v. City of Monterey H012606 · 1995-08-03
- Kirkpatrick v. City of Oceanside D011075 · 1991-07-15
- Nichols v. County of Santa Clara B036238 · 1990-09-14
- Trihedron International Assurance, Ltd. v. Superior Court D011062 · 1990-03-13
- Bennett v. Bodily B031878 · 1989-06-01
- Sutake v. Orange County Federal Credit Union G002472 · 1986-09-30
- Kreutzer v. County of San Diego Civ. 28843 · 1984-03-15
- Habrun v. Department of Social Services Civ. 26265 · 1983-07-22
- Rumford v. City of Berkeley S.F. 24239 · 1982-06-01
- County of Sacramento v. Lackner Civ. 17051 · 1979-09-12
- Civil Service Employees Insurance v. Superior Court S.F. 23483 · 1978-09-28
- Anacker v. Sillas Civ. 49116 · 1976-12-28
- Skelly v. State Personnel Board S.F. 23241 · 1975-09-16
- Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education Civ. 33547 · 1975-08-28
- Beaudreau v. Superior Court L.A. 30360 · 1975-05-29
- Greer v. Board of Education of Santa Rosa City School District Civ. 32952 · 1975-04-11
- White v. Davis L.A. 30348 · 1975-03-24
- People v. Brisendine Crim. 16520 · 1975-02-20
- Diamond v. Bland L.A. 30190 · 1974-04-25