Legal Opinion

Medcalf v. Department of Licensing

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1997No. 64509-4Published

1Concurrence · MadsenMadsen, J.

(concurring) — Neither the implied consent statute nor its policy underpinnings require the majority’s conclusion that in a driver’s license revocation proceeding based upon "refusal” to submit to a breath test for alcohol, a mental condition rendering the driver unable either to refuse or to cooperate in the test is an irrelevant consideration. The majority’s result is particularly unfortunate because it fails to acknowledge that a mental disorder may be just as debilitating as a physically manifested condition incapacitating the driver. I concur in the result reached by the majority,…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Alexander.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Garrison v. Washington State Nursing BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Miller v. StatonWashington Supreme Court · 1961
  3. McLaughlin v. CookeWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. O'DONOGHUE v. RiggsWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State Department of Motor Vehicles v. McElwainWashington Supreme Court · 1972

6 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