gno.law

Smith v. McCarthy

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 25806 · 1960-06-02 · Published · 54 Cal. 2d 863 · 353 P.2d 293 · 5 Cal. Rptr. 685 · 1960 Cal. LEXIS 220

ROBERT COLLINS SMITH v. ROBERT McCARTHY, as Director of Motor Vehicles

Area
civil
Panel
Raymond E. Peters (author), B R. Schauer

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

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.

Dissent — Peters

PETERS, J.—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.

Dissent — Schauer

SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.

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.

Cites, in this corpus