Case Name: Delores L. Barton, appellant, v. Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Nebraska, appellee
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1975-12-04
Citations: 194 Neb. 765
Docket Number: No. 40024
Parties: Delores L. Barton, appellant, v. Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Nebraska, appellee.
Judges: Heard before White, C. J., McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ., and Windrum, District Judge.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Delores L. Barton, appellant, v. Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Nebraska, appellee.
235 N. W. 2d 863
Filed December 4, 1975.
No. 40024.
William G. Line of Kerrigan, Line, Martin & Hanson, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Steven C. Smith, for appellee.
Heard before White, C. J., McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ., and Windrum, District Judge.

Opinion:
Newton, J.
This is an appeal from an order revoking the driver's license of defendant. Defendant contends that her refusal to take any tests for alcohol under the implied consent law was due to her being confused as to her rights by the reading to her of the Miranda warnings and the implied consent law provisions. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The defendant relies on the case of Wiseman v. Sullivan, 190 Neb. 724, 211 N. W. 2d 906, which holds that if such confusion is present it may void a refusal under the implied consent law. The case is not applicable here. The record is entirely devoid of any evidence supporting a claim of confusion. "On appeal to the District Court under section 60-420, R. R. S. 1943, from an order of the Director of. the Department of Motor Vehicles made under section 39-.669..16, "R; R. S. 1943, revoking a motor vehicle operator's license, the burden'of proof is on the licensee to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the ground for reversal." Mackey v. Director of Department of Motor Vehicles, ante p. 707, 235 N. W. 2d 394.
Defendant has failed to maintain her burden of proof .and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.