Legal Opinion
Metcalf v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 26, 1974No. 1964-1PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.
— This is a first impression case presenting a single issue. Is the requirement for a “sworn report” in RCW 46.20.308 (3) , 1 the implied consent statute, jurisdictional?
A document reciting the statutory grounds for revocation of John Metcalf’s driver’s license was filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The document was signed by an officer who had arrested Metcalf, but was not “sworn to” before any person qualified to administer oaths and affirmations under RCW 5.28.010. The department revoked Met-calf’s license for 6 months and, pursuant to RCW 46.20.308 (4), he requested a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell v. BursonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Department of Revenue v. HoppeWashington Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. LundquistWashington Supreme Court · 1962
- Wilcox v. BillingsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
- In Re RossWashington Supreme Court · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Volck v. MuzioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Platt Electric Supply, Inc. v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1976
- Greenwood v. Department of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1975
- Hahn v. NethNebraska Supreme Court · 2005
- Blackburn v. MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, DEPT.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.