Court Opinion

ID: 9546019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:23:48.225615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:54.554704
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Peters in Hough v. McCarthy, ante, p. 287 [5 Cal.Rptr. 668, 353 P.2d 276], the action of the director and the department in this case, by virtue of their policy of automatic suspension, deprived Sauer of the meaningful hearing to which he was entitled under former Vehicle Code, section 316. Therefore, I believe that the portion of the judgment which grants a peremptory writ of mandate should be affirmed. I agree with the majority that the portion of the judgment which denies damages should be affirmed.
McComb, J., concurred.