Legal Opinion
Payne v. Department of Motor Vehicles
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 15, 1991No. A052577PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENSON, J.
—The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), appeals from judgment granting a writ of mandate. The trial court directed DMV to set aside its order suspending respondent Mark Anthony Payne’s (Payne) driving privilege for failure to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test as required by Vehicle Code section 13353, 1 the implied consent law. DMV contends Payne’s conduct constituted a refusal to submit to the required chemical test as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.
Factual and Procedural Background
The essential facts are undisputed. After he was involved in an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fallis v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Webb v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Carrey v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Cole v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Ross v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Espinoza v. ShiomotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Fugere v. State, Taxation & Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle DivisionNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Hildebrand v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Garcia v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Arburn v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.