Court Opinion

ID: 9713388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:14:35.602566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.546103
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree that the language of Section 38, Chapt. 251, Laws of N.D.1955, is ambiguous. This section provides, that upon an appeal from an order of the highway commissioner revoking or suspending a driver’s license be ' “ * * * court is hereby vested with jurisdiction and it shall be its duty to set the matter for hearing upon thirty days written notice to the commissioner and thereupon to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case and to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to suspension, cancellation, or revocation of license under the provisions of this Act.”
I agree that this section provides for a trial de novo of the1 question which the court is specifically vested with jurisdiction to determine. I think, however, that the language “to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to suspension, cancellation,’ or revocation of license under the provisions of this Act” means to determine whether grounds for suspension, cancellation or revocation exist under the statute. I think that is the limit of the jurisdiction conferred upon the court on such appeals and that the court may not, after having found that sufficient grounds exist, modify the order of the commissioner with respect to the term of a suspension. In re Wright, 228 N.C. 584, 46 S.E.2d 696.