Case Name: Walter John McMILLEN and Mark L. Haug, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Scott MATHESON, Governor, David L. Wilkinson, Attorney General, and Fred Schwendiman, Driver License Services, Defendants and Appellants
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1987-08-28
Citations: 741 P.2d 960
Docket Number: No. 19924
Parties: Walter John McMILLEN and Mark L. Haug, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Scott MATHESON, Governor, David L. Wilkinson, Attorney General, and Fred Schwendiman, Driver License Services, Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 741
Pages: 960–961

Head Matter:
Walter John McMILLEN and Mark L. Haug, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Scott MATHESON, Governor, David L. Wilkinson, Attorney General, and Fred Schwendiman, Driver License Services, Defendants and Appellants.
No. 19924.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Aug. 28, 1987.
David L. Wilkinson, Stephen Schwendi-man, Bruce Hale, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
Robert Van Sciver, Edward K. Brass, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Since this case was briefed to this Court, the Utah Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Kehl v. Schwendiman, 735 P.2d 413 (Utah App.1987). In both that case and this, the district court had reversed an administrative suspension of a driver's license as not supported by a residuum of competent legal evidence. In both cases, the Department of Public Safety appealed, contending that the "residuum rule" should not apply to per se drivers' license revocation hearings or, alternatively, that there was sufficient competent evidence introduced at the hearing to meet the requirement of the "residuum rule."
The Kehl court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the examiner's order to suspend Kehl's driver's license was not supported by a residuum of legal evidence. The same is true in the case here under review. See also Harry v. Schwendiman, 740 P.2d 1344 (Utah App.1987); Williams v. Schwendiman, 740 P.2d 1354 (Utah App.1987).
The judgment is affirmed.