Legal Opinion
Betyar v. Pierce
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 15, 1988No. D006582PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WIENER, Acting P. J.
Defendant Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked plaintiff Bela Betyar’s driver’s license for two years under the implied consent law (Veh. Code, § 13353)1 because of his refusal or failure to complete a blood-alcohol test when requested to do so by a peace officer. Betyar successfully petitioned the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandate directing the DMV to vacate its revocation. This appeal ensued.
The principal issue is whether a factual finding in the underlying criminal proceeding that Betyar “did take and complete a chemical test” following his…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- California Loan & Trust Co. v. WeisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Skinner v. SillasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Pond v. MaddoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Briggs v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- In Re Pedro C.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Claxton v. ZolinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- People v. Pedro C.California Court of Appeal · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.