Legal Opinion
Hildebrand v. Department of Motor Vehicles
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 27, 2007No. D048540PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Plaintiff Dale Hildebrand appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate, upholding the administrative suspension by respondent, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), of his driving privileges. (Veh. Code, 1 § 13353; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Hildebrand contends there was insufficient admissible evidence introduced at the DMV’s administrative hearing to establish he was driving at the relevant time because the only such evidence introduced at the hearing was the inadmissible hearsay statement of a non-peace officer.
Hildebrand…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Fukuda v. City of AngelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Lake v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Pasadena Unified School District v. Commission on Professional CompetenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Manriquez v. GourleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Troppman v. ValverdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Espinoza v. ShiomotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Garcia v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. Bureau of Security & Investigative ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Finnerty v. Board of Registered NursingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Isaac v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.