Legal Opinion

Helsten v. Schwendiman

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1983No. 18440, 18583PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEWART, Justice:

In these consolidated cases, appellants are drivers whose licenses were revoked by the Department of Public Safety pursuant to *510Utah’s implied consent statute, U.C.A., 1958, § 41-6-44.10. A district court upheld the revocations. Appellants contend that the revocation procedure was invalid because the arresting police officer failed to submit a “sworn report,” as required by § 41-6-44.10(b).

Section 41-6-44.10 authorizes the Department of Public Safety to revoke the license of a driver who refuses to submit to a chemical test for the purpose of determining whether that person…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wilcox v. BillingsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
  2. Beck v. CoxUtah Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Blackburn v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, DEPT.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  4. Cavaness v. CoxUtah Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Dawson v. Secretary of StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Mickelsen v. Craigco, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Colman v. SchwendimanUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Stephens v. State, Transportation DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Baker v. SchwendimanUtah Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Moore v. SchwendimanCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1988

7 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