Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bullock v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1989No. 18556Published

1Dissent

Steffen, J.,

joined by Mowbray, J., dissenting:

I dissent.

In my view, the majority have misperceived the thrust of the actual physical control provision contained in NRS 484.379. Both the hearing officer and the district court judge understood, correctly I submit, that the legislature sought by that language to discourage intoxicated persons from entering their vehicles in the capacity of operators in areas accessible to the public.

I agree with the hearing officer’s conclusion that although “it is commendable for an individual not to drive his vehicle once he is *329incapable of safely operating…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hughes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
  2. State v. WebbArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  3. City of Cincinnati v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Adams v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
  5. City of Toledo v. VoylesOhio Court of Appeals · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API