Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State, Department of Public Safety v. Prine

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1996No. 92-CA-00512-SCTPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSmith, Justice

The majority is correct in affirming the lower court’s denial of Prine’s requested reduction of the period of time of his suspended driver’s license for hardship purposes. Prine had been convicted of multiple offenses (four DUI’s) under the Implied Consent Statutes and thus was not eligible for hardship consideration. Hardship reductions are only available for a first time DUI offender. It is with the majority’s affirmance of the lower court’s denial of administrative “stacking” of the drivers license suspension periods for implied consent convictions that I must part company.

Prine’s driver’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sheffield v. City of Pass ChristianMississippi Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Maycock v. ReedMississippi Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Tate v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API