Opinion ID: 1377776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Majority's Comments about State v. Tooley.

Text: The majority makes the following statement: In Tooley, however, we found the notice defective because it `incorrectly communicated that the revocation went in to effect regardless of defendant's request for a hearing and remained in effect unless and until defendant prevailed.' 297 Or. at 609, 687 P.2d 1068. That language might be taken to mean that notice requirements may be other than what the legislature specifies by statute. That is not the yardstick by which we measure the required contents of the notice in this case, and we specifically disavow such language. (Footnote omitted.) It seems to me that the majority is overruling Tooley without saying so. The Tooley decision was published in 1984. It was a unanimous opinion by the full court. Six of the seven members who signed that opinion are participating in this opinion. The legislature has met twice since 1984, and I know of no legislation that has been enacted which would change the effect of the Tooley decision. In Tooley this court also said: The Division is required to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to revoking or suspending a license for the reasons set forth in ORS 486.211. 297 Or. at 607, 687 P.2d 1068 (emphasis in original). We also said the notice requirement [of ORS 486.221] is designed to apprise the licensee of the Division's action and of the means to contest the action before the revocation goes into effect. 297 Or. at 606, 687 P.2d 1068. Does the majority also disavow these statements?