Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sedlacek v. Pearson

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1979No. 42330Published

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

  1. Prucha v. Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Zahtila v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Rev.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Wiseman v. SullivanNebraska Supreme Court · 1973
  4. MacKey v. Director of the Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Callan v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API