*1 not of action was ruled cause correctly plaintiff’s 508:4; Brewster limitations. RSA barred statute of (1872); 63 N.H. Brewster, v. N.H. Clark v. Slayton, 402, 1 Richards, N.H. A. v. Bolduc (1885); (1958). Our suit A.2d dismissal not render defendant does seasonably notify failure and, therefore, may judgment merits 508:10; saving RSA bring a new action under the statute. (1970); Sullivan, see N.H. A.2d 273 Adams Ricker, Carveth A.2d 836 Paju Latham, 110 N.H. A.2d motion to dismissgranted. Defendant’s All concurred.
Rockingham
No. 6273
Edward D. Daneault Frederick N. Clarke, Jr., Director, Vehicle Motor Division
September *2 Dakar, orally, plaintiff. brief for the and VictorW. Rudman, attorney F. Ther- and general, Richard Warren B. orally), the State. rien, attorney Therrien (Mr. direc- enjoin the defendant plaintiff The seeks to Duncan, J. motor operate pend- license to vehicles revoking
tor from his to determine whether he hearing re- ing an administrative (the under RSA to a blood test 262-A:69-a fused to consent law). The an agreed case reaches us implied consent plaintiff which that the of facts discloses was statement a motor vehicle at driving Derry and charged arrested 1971, 19, while under the influence of February on intoxicat- disagree The as to whether the ing liquor. parties arresting (RSA implied law plaintiff informed the consent officer 119:3) 1969, by Laws but it agreed as amended is 262-A:69-e that the officer “filed sworn statement re- appropriate 69-e required by the Director” section and that port with as plaintiff thereupon the director notified that his license days, 90 and that he was entitled to a was revoked for hear- if within 30 requested days. before the director RSA ing 262- requested A:69-f. The an immediate hearing, but brought, parties agreed action was that further after this stayed disposi- would be proceedings pending administrative tion of the transferred case.
The Superior J.) Court temporary a issued (Loughlin, injunction, and transferred to ruling, this court without question of whether the jurisdiction court “has or should jurisdiction” exercise enjoin to suspension of the plaintiff’s license “pending judicial administrative and review of said revocation under RSA 69-g respectively.” and 262-A:69-f jurisdiction of the superior court in the matter appears issue, not to be in propriety constitutionality but the of revocation prior without notice and hearing vigorously is questioned by the plaintiff. He attention calls statement to. 186, in 183, 870, 102 152 A.2d Opinion Justices, of to a vehicle license motor “may that a (1959), operate Wall be than relies more extensively upon privilege”, for the 1953), Cir. (1st proposition F.2d King, license within meaning that a a fundamental liberty recent he of the fourteenth amendment. Finally urges establish States decisions of the of the United Supreme due to notice and as a pro- requirement right law be curtailed. Goldberg cess of before essential may rights Ct. 1011 254, 287, 90 S. 397 U.S. L. Ed. 2d Kelly, 280, L. Ed. Wheeler v. 2d U.S. Montgomery, Fin. Ct. S. See also Sniadach (1970). Family 395 U.S. Ct. 1820 Ed. S. 2d Carp. case before Bell v. allied us is Burson,
More closely L. Ed. 2d S. Ct. 1586 U.S. (1971), *3 Court out that of the suspension which pointed operators’ interest”, and calls for licenses “adjudicates important “that the due Fourteenth required Amend by process procedural 94, 539, L. Ed. 91 at 2d at S. Id. 29 Ct. at ment”. 1589. license could not be that a In without holding suspended of because involvement in a motor vehicle hearing solely prior accident, Court that the recognized be prior hearing may situations”, “in v. Mal emergency citing Fahey dispensed 245, 2030, 91 L. tones, U.S. Ed. 67 S. Ct. 332 1552 (1947), & 594, 339 94 U.S. Casselberry, and Mytinger L. Ewing Ed. Burson, Bell v. Ct. 870 (1950). 70 S. at supra 542 8c n.5, 91 Ed. 96 8c n.5, L. at S. 1591 2d Ct. at 29 & n.5. Shevin, 67, 90, in Fuentes 407 U.S. L. 32 Ed. 2d Again 556, 575, S. Ct. the of (1972), 92 the opinion Court that there are situations’ recognized ‘“extraordinary that notice an for and a hear- justify opportunity postponing and the elaborated of these situations upon requirements ing” first, “to secure an as being necessity important governmental interest”, second, or interest the existence of general public third, a need for action” and that “the very prompt “special the has been a seizure official person government initiating the of under standards a nar- determining responsible statute, it drawn that was and in justified rowly necessary 90-91, 575-76, Id. L. Ed. the instance.” at at 2d particular The the Ct. at cited 92 S. 1999-2000. and Fahey again cases, North American Co. Ewing Storage adding Chicago, Fuentes, S. Ct. 101 L. Ed. U.S. nn.26-28, nn.26-28, Ed. at 576-77 2d at
407 U.S. Ct. at nn.26-28. S. We the the consider that case before us answers require- after ments brief of until justifying postponement revocation of the The statute license. requires evidence, sworn in the form of a arresting report officer, for the official in consideration of a neutral State director, of the defendant before revocation shall person be ordered. It for immediate notice that a hear- also provides be had within therefor. ing may days request that the director suggests “compelled” under to statute revoke a license upon receipt officer’s On the that report. contrary, requirement which the sworn contain “facts reasonable report to believe had been [that arrested grounds driving person based”, while the fact that the under are influence] information accused to a in the face of refused submit test revocation, the de- that refusal would result implies determination fendant has the to make a duty preliminary whether in the revocation is particular “necessary justified Fuentes, L. Ed. at instance.” 407 U.S. at 2d Grimshaw, 2000; S. Ct. at see N.Y.S.2d 263 Application of Hults, Ct. 1957); Ct. 234 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. (Sup. Lashway 1962). under
That of motor vehicles by persons *4 operation the influence of calls for “very prompt intoxicating liquor action”, interest” needs to “secure an important public general 335, 338, no elaboration. See State 102 N.H. Gallagher, Gallant, 72, 76, State (1959); A.2d Severance, 108 N.H. State (1967); 227 A.2d Annot., 88 1064 (1963). A.L.R.2d 237 A.2d that no not We do public suggestion agree license whose is will be furthered because interest person a license. continue to drive without nevertheless revoked may amended, ch. See as Laws 1972), RSA 262:27-b (Supp. Comment, 248; Comment, 70 W. Va. L. Rev. 408-09 (1968); 51 Mich. Rev. 1197 (1953). constitutional,
We conclude that the statute is director should not be from plain- enjoined revoking tiff’s license administrative hearing judicial pending review. 10, 1973;
Remanded; to issue October certificate to be held administrative
within ten days thereafter.
Grimes, dissented; J., concurred. others is dic- In view a result Grimes, contrary my dissenting: J. United the decisions tated Supreme by cited in the court’s States opinion.
Rockingham No. 6352 and Walter Bamford Wilson
Franklin W B & Sand Co. d.b.a. & Gravel LeGrice James
September Giordano, filed no brief. & for Sayer plaintiffs, LeGrice, defendant, brief, se. pro by James to recover action on the case Per curiam. This an under furnished claimed due labor and materials balance court A trial an oral contract between parties. *5 defend- $600. verdict for resulted plaintiffs Keller, and transferred reserved were ant's exceptions C.J.