Legal Opinion
Murray v. Thorneycroft ex rel. Arizona Highway Department Motor Vehicle Division
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 20, 1981No. 2 CA-CIV 3907PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HATHAWAY, Chief Judge.
Challenged on this appeal is the policy of the Arizona Highway Department of Motor Vehicles Division, which requires the suspension of licenses of drivers who refuse to take the chemical test for intoxication. While A.R.S. § 28-691(D) calls for mandatory suspension in such circumstances, A.R.S. § 28-446(A)(9) allows the department to order driver training without suspension in the same circumstances. Appellant contends that the department’s policy of always applying A.R.S. § 28-691(D) and never proceeding under A.R.S. § 28-446(A)(9) denies him the equal protection…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Heer v. Department of Motor VehiclesOregon Supreme Court · 1969
- Walker v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Augustino v. Colorado Department of RevenueSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
- In Re McCainNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. Super. Ct. in & for Cty. of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- Kellum v. THORNEYCROFT, ETC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
- State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
- Murray v. THORNEYCROFT EX REL. ARIZONA, ETC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1981