Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RONALD RICHARDSON, PETITIONER APPELLEE v. WILLIAM S. HIATT, COMMISSIONER, NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT APPELLANT

Automobiles and Other Vehicles 2.4 — revocation of driver's license — case remanded for determination as to willfulness of refusal to submit to chemical analysis of blood The opinion filed in this case on 15 August 1989 was in error in ordering that the cause be remanded to Nash County Superior Court for entry of an order affirming the revocation of petitioner's driver's license; instead the case is remanded to Superior Court for a new trial at which time petitioner will have an opportunity to present evidence, and the trial court can determine whether petitioner willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his blood.

COZORT, Judge.

Petitioner files a Petition for Rehearing pursuant to Rule 31 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Upon review of the petition, this Court finds that the opinion filed in this case on 15 August 1989 was in error in ordering that the cause be remanded to Nash County Superior Court for entry of an order affirming the revocation of petitioner's driver's license. The proper resolution of the cause is to remand to Superior Court for a new trial. At a new trial, petitioner will have an opportunity to present evidence, and the trial court can determine whether the petitioner willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his blood. See Joyner v. Garrett, 279 N.C. 226, 182 S.E.2d 553, petition to rehear denied, 279 N.C. 397, 183 S.E.2d 241 (1971).

The petitioner's Petition for Rehearing is granted in order for this Court to modify its opinion of 15 August 1989 to provide that the trial court's judgment of 11 August 1988 is reversed in part, affirmed in part and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.

Judges PHILLIPS and PARKER concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RICHARDSON v. HIATT
(Oct 1, 1989)