Legal Opinion

Hoefling v. Motor Vehicles Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 8, 1993No. 88-8-272; CA A50800PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.

This case was remanded from the Supreme Court for us to reconsider our previous decision, Hoefling v. MVD, 104 Or App 11, 799 P2d 176 (1990), in the light of Gildroy v. MVD, 315 Or 617, 848 P2d 96 (1993). We remand to the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) for further proceedings.

The facts of this case are adequately stated in our previous opinion. The issue is whether respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to communicate with his attorney when he did not have a private telephone conversation with his attorney before taking the breath test. In Gildroy v. MVD, supra, the Supreme Court held…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gildroy v. Motor Vehicles DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Ranger v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  3. Hoefling v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gildroy v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API