Sedlacek v. Pearson
Nebraska Supreme Court
1DissentClinton, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for reasons which I will briefly set forth. First: The language of the opinion tends to create uncertainty as to the meaning of the implied consent statutes, section 39-669.08 et seq., R. R. S. 1943, where, under the prior opinions of this court, such uncertainty did not exist. Second: The opinion will tend to create confusion in the application of the law and uncertainty in its enforcement. As a consequence, we can anticipate increased appellate litigation in license revocations and criminal prosecutions under the implied consent statutes…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Prucha v. Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
- Zahtila v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Rev.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1977
- Wiseman v. SullivanNebraska Supreme Court · 1973
- MacKey v. Director of the Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 1975
- Callan v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.