Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Roberts v. State of Maine

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided February 16, 1995No. 93-2392Published

1ConcurrenceCyr, Circuit Judge

Although I am pleased to concur in the result reached in the ably crafted majority opinion, I write separately on the due process claim.

On direct appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (“Law Court”), citing State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991, 994 (1980) (pre-Ne-ville ), erroneously concluded that “the right to a warning of the consequences of refusing a chemical test is not one of constitutional dimensions.” State v. Roberts, 609 A.2d 702, 703 (Me.1992).3 The district court below likewise erred in ruling that a “requirement that a driver submit to a chemical test does not implicate the due…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Albright v. OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

33 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