Document: 410 U.S. 425 93 S.Ct. 1019 35 L.Ed.2d 398 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES the STATE CALIFORNIAv.Federico RIOS, a minor, etc. No. 72—686. Feb. 26, 1973. 425, 398, on remand 107 Cal.Rptr. 784, 509 P.2d 696, 9 C.3d 454. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, California motorist, was involved in an automobile collision March 18, 1971. Both drivers filed accident reports with Department of Motor Vehicles as required by Financial Responsibility Laws. Without affording petitioner hearing question potential liability, and based solely contents reports, found that there reasonable possibility judgment might be recovered against result accident. Since uninsured could not deposit security, his license suspended. The Supreme Court reversed, holding prior to suspension 'a is at such licensee entitled review or other evidence upon which department contemplates determining he possibly responsible for accident, present testimony establish claim non-culpability, all within due process procedures may employ.' Rios v. Cozens, 7 Cal.3d 792, 799, 103 299, 304, 499 979, 984 (1972). 2 We are unable determine, however, whether its Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States, equivalent provision Constitution, both. In reaching this case, court relied primarily Court's decisions Bell Burson, 402 535, 91 1586, 29 90 (1971), Jennings Mahoney, 404 25, 92 180, 30 146 but also cited own Randone Appellate Department, 5 536, 96 709, 488 13 (1971); Blair Pitchess, 258, 42, 486 1242 McCallop Carberry, 903, 83 666, 464 122 (1970), Cline Credit Bureau Santa Clara Valley, 908, 669, 125 apparently were premised both state federal provisions. addition, specifically overruled Orr Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 220, 77 816, 454 712 (1969), Escobedo State California, 870, 222 (1950), had upheld here under attack Thus, Mental Hygiene Dept. Kirchner, 380 194, 196—197, 85 871, 873, 753 (1965), '(w)hile we speculate from choice words used opinion, authorities court, basis say any degree certainty adequate independent nonfederal ground.' therefore grant California's petition certiorari, vacate cause further proceedings appropriate. Krivda, 409 33, 32, 34 45 (1972); supra; Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 84 L.Ed. 920 (1940); Tax Comm'n Van Cott, 306 511, 59 605, 8 950 (1939). 3 It so ordered. 4 Judgment vacated remanded. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL concur, dissenting. 6 quite correct saying have remanded cases courts took way appeal when uncertain rested grounds. But 920, shows how unhappy practice is.1 Yet, even assuming it proper procedure, should use determine take case. No case can properly reach until unless presented. Our Rule 19(1)(a) states standard granting certiorari following: 'Where has decided substance determined probably accord applicable court.' Commercial Bank Buckingham's Executors, How. 317, 341, 12 169, said enough been presented 'it must appear, clear necessary intendment, raised, decided, order induce judgment.' Brown Atwell, 327, 329, 23 ruled appear decision 'was determination cause, actually rendered given without deciding it.' times our deny note dismiss record clarified. See Honeyman Hanan, 300 14, 25—26, 57 350, 355, 81 476. 10 know upon. Where arguably 'the rests two grounds, one involving not,' Lynch New York, 293 52, 54, 55 16, 17, 79 191, do 11 ruling revocation driver's hearing, follows: 'Petitioner relies numerous recent States recognized individual constitutionally being deprived significant interest. (Goldberg Kelly (1970) 397 254, 266, 1011, 25 287; Sniadach Family Finance Corp. (1969) 395 337, 342, 89 1820, 349; (1971) 547, 13.) This principle plethora vital personal property rights (see supra, 548, fn. 8, 13), most frequently applied invalidate statutes creditor prejudgment remedies debtor notice (see, e.g., Pitchess 1242; Carberry 122; Valley 125). 'The rule explicated foregoing instant circumstances.' 795, 301, 981. 14 seems plain grounds requisite showing presence controlling books since first Judiciary Act, Stat. 73, 85, made.2 15 opinion written Mosk agreed all. makes judgment. International only Term tempted seek larger docket. Ours already large; hardly comports messages distress emanated us gather more th beginning sparsely discretely selected domain. Cohens Virginia, Wheat. 264, 257, raised storm protest intrusion yet subsided. taught me wise insist taken clearly ground not, here, save where questions intertwined make matter. Enterprise Irrigation District Farmers' Mutual Canal 243 157, 163—165, 37 318, 320—321, 61 644. 16 I would certiorari. On said: 'If error, then assuredly opportunity set aright cheerfully thankfully accepted. Having re-examined them, conclude right. There no need discussion problems former adequately covers ground. think section statute (L.1933, c. 213, § 2(b), Mason Minn.St.1936 Supp. 5887—2(b)), violative uniformity clause Constitution.' Co. State, 208 Minn. 607, 608, 294 N.W. 230, 231. Title 28 U.S.C. 1257 presently provides certiorari: 'Final judgments decrees highest had, reviewed '(3) By writ Certiorari, validity treaty drawn repugnant treaties laws title, right, privilege immunity specially up claimed of, commission held authority exercised under, States.'

Category: 8