Montrym v. Panora

1157 reversed, and the same is duty good failing hereby of the faith for breach remanded specifical- to do an act or acts that the code further inconsistent proceedings not be states need done.28 ly opinion. this con an order in remaining issue to be attorneys may submit among order of priority sidered within the accordance with this in parties creditors. All of secured the local rules. allowed therefore, filing, herein perfected by volved 75-9-312(5)(a) applies. Ann. Miss.Code § priority section states that accrues:

That perfect

“in the if both are filing order regardless security of which by filing,

ed 9-

interest attached first under Section

204(1) and whether it attached before filing.” after MONTRYM, Individually E. Donald Appellees stress fact that FFC did on behalf of all others “accept” Ball security agreement similarly situated 4, 1975, April and Hammons until some partners’ security agree- months after the PANORA, Registrar A. Robert of Motor argues ment with BWAC. fur- Appellee Vehicles, and his successors office. security agreement ther FFC’s did not therefore attach until after had al- BWAC No. CA 76-2560-F. interest; thus, ready perfected entitling its Court, United priority BWAC to first vis-a-vis States District FFC. D. Massachusetts. Appellees’ argument overlooks the ex- press wording 9-812(5)(a). A financ- 6, Oct. 1977. may be ing statement filed before the se- Judgment 31,1977. Vacated Oct. curity interest itself attaches. The relevant See S.Ct. 386. inquiry is therefore not on time the competing security attached, interests

rather, order and time In Re filing.

Rivet, (E.D.Mich.1969). Official Example 1,

See Comment 9-§ (1972 Revision). case, the present financing FFC filed Secretary

statements with the of State and County

the Smith Chancery Clerk on Octo- 14, 1974, 22, 1974,

ber respec- October

tively. Appellee BWAC filed December per- and December 1974. GE filed to

fect March 1975. Accordingly, since

this that Appellant determined properly perfected

FFC as to the bank- collateral,

rupt-debtors’ inventory FFC

thereby priority entitled to first under Miss. 75-9-312(5)(a).

Code Ann. § hereinabove,

For the reasons stated hereby

decision of Court is Bankruptcy rendered, changes, 1, 1978, April merely After this decision was it came to effective many way suggest- the Court’s attention that noted and in no present appeal. affect the outcome of the Cpt. revisions were ed contained U.C.C. Gen. Miss. Laws adopted by Legislature. (footnote by Mississippi Court). These

1158 Mass., Cambridge, Hagopian,

Robert W. plaintiff. Gen., Rusconi, Atty. Bos- Asst. A. Steven Mass., ton, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM CAMPBELL, Judge and Before Circuit Judge, dis- Campbell, Levin H. Circuit TAURO, Judges. District FREEDMAN and opinion. sented and filed TAURO, Judge. District Motor Vehicles Defendant this court reconsider its denial has moved stay modify motions of his earlier against entered him this court judgment 4,1977 opin- with the May accordance 1977, 25, 429 issued on March ion He the recent primarily relies 431 Supreme Court case Dixon 1723, L.Ed.2d 172 S.Ct. case, (1977). In the Court Licensing Driver provision of Secretary of empowers Law which revoke, pre- without a suspend or State a license of driver who liminary hearing, for traffic repeatedly been convicted had offenses. argues, and this court critical factors distin- that several

agrees, significance Love this case. The from guish ap- becomes distinguishing factors these analyzed terms of they when parent El- test Mathews v. prong the three 893, 47 96 S.Ct. dridge, 424 U.S. considera- (1976) requires L.Ed.2d tion of: First, that will be private action; second, the official affected deprivation risk of an erroneous procedures through such interest used, value, probable any, 1011, 1018, and the 397 U.S. procedural safe- (1970). additional substitute L.Ed.2d 287 The Illinois statute guards; finally, Government’s in- special includes provisions terest, including the function involved licenses, holders of commercial and the fiscal and administrative burdens who those most be affected proce- that the or additional substitute by deprival driving privileges. See requirement dural would entail. 7, supra. n. We conclude that therefore was a sion. permit. than emergency tion of nois statute allowed a person, Court 424 First, U.S. (c)2.1 that controlling emphasized suspension at Ill.Ann.Stat. relief in the form of a at The 335, private stake in Love. opportunity 96 factor or that S.Ct. revocation, c. in the 951/2 at 903. challenged here for §§ Court’s There, such restricted 6-206(c)3 notifica- request greater relief deci- Illi- (1974). U.S. by from the ordinary to adverse administrative action.” Math- ^[893] ews v. Eldridge, 424 not the nature U.S. our evidentiary hearing so great at 134, at decisions, 907. 113, 94 of the as to See S.Ct. that S.Ct. Arnett v. private require principle, 1633, U.S., something at 1728. sufficient at interest here 40 L.Ed.2d 15 us “to Kennedy, 343, established less than 96 S.Ct. depart prior 416 private by The interest affected There is no comparable safeguard in the here granted challenged decision is the license to statute. See operate motor 90, vehicle. Unlike the so- 24(l)(f). Mass.Gen.Laws ch. We rec- § cial security recipients in Eldridge, ognize who that there ais statutory provision at least could obtain pay- retroactive for a at of the license if ments their claims were subsequently surrender. Mass.Gen.Laws ch. sustained, a licensee is not entirely But, made 24(l)(g). we pointed § as out our whole his prior opinion, revocation is hearings such are to be hand, later vacated. other On the a driv- delayed with consequence er’s license may not be so vital and essen- suspended period license remains for a tial payments social insurance being any time without there pro- available which the recipient may depend for for his cedure seeking emergency Opin- relief. very subsistence. Goldberg Kelly, See ion 429 at n. 11 and 400.2 scheme, application may 1. Under the driv- prior hearing. Illinois commercial be considered suspended may er whose license has been sub- 1723. S.Ct. Supreme view In of the issue before setting mit an affidavit forth the facts Love, logical Court it is to conclude that employment and the number of offenses com- post consideration what occurs after mitted a commercial vehicle. evidentiary hearing (under Ill.Ann.Stat. c. 95 V2 Upon receipt of the affidavit and the driver’s 2-118) Supreme would be § irrelevant. Yet the license, Secretary “thereupon shall send to explicitly special provi- referred permit said driver drive a commercial for licenses and for sions holders of commercial regular occupation.” in his vehicle Alterna- hardship cases, passage as indicated in the tively, the commercial driver seek a hear- text, quoted above in the when it enumerated ing. 6-206(c)2. Ill.Ann.Stat. c. 95‘/2 § Conse- factors those which led the Court to conclude quently, potential for commercial loss is right involved in Love did that the nature of the considerably less than in Massachusetts. evidentiary prior not statutory granting for scheme or revocation. hardship permits ambigu- is somewhat more Judge Campbell’s stipulated references Secretary may ous. It is not clear whether throughout facts footnote 3 and dissent- grant prevent consider and a limited license to opinion ing are troublesome. Our under- hardship prior hearing permitted undue standing proposed stipula- is that defendant’s 2-118, by Ill.Ann.Stat. c. 95V2 subse- plaintiff. § tion of facts was executed not quent hearing. 6-206(c)3. While opinion dissenting Campbell Judge In his dissenting our brother hard- believes provides states . “Massachusetts ship application may be made and considered hearing commencing, though for a full not nec- only subsequent hearing, opin- to a the Court’s essarily ending, same the license Love, supra, suggests ion in hearings is surrendered.” The fact is that out, pointed op- mun “had the Unlike situation hearing in judicial con- emergency re- a full portunity no provides opportunity traffic convictions hearing. potential Hence the lief to a nection with each prior and economic hard- personal Secretary’s decision irreparable on which the at in Massachusetts than in ship greater is far 431 U.S. based.” sure, of human Illinois. risk To be there some criminal record in Illinois’ reliance error interpretation ad Contrary insignificant. that risk is keeping. Yet defendant, prior our vanced contrast, proce- the Massachusetts under Registrar provide require that does solely dure, is based Registrar’s decision evidentia pre-suspension opportunity for which the licensee on a form affidavit Rather, we that some hearing. ry The licensee does to rebut. opportunity provided a licen to be heard be opportunity heard with have an suspension. prior see findings the to of three factual regard any hearing, must at a not be formal but need to for the be made as basis give licensee a chance to alert minimum his license.3 revocation of suspen possibility that Registrar unjust. would be sion is unwarranted concurring opinion of According to the spe Illinois has made recognized, As Love Stevens, was not Supreme Court Justice The hardship situations. provision cial for analysis rejecting constitutional in Massachusetts is lack of such His indi- opinion Love. District Court critical. suspension or revoca- parte that an ex cates subjective fac- license, on tion of a based under the Second, the risk of error tors, constitutionally permissi- may not be less than under markedly Illinois scheme is that sum- ble. The inference seems be procedure. The revoca the Massachusetts permissible mary constitutionally a series action is in Illinois is based on tion decision that are when it is based on facts only As Justice Black- convictions. criminal ever, day rarely, where there was no the license is think most instances if held on the acknowledged parties dispute give at it surrendered. Both about that would someone real argument any dispute that factual would opportunity, oral like if he had a situation this impossible to an immediate hear- make it hold bring plaintiff, it to the attention of the ing. on the matter renewable supplied). Transcript Registrar.” (emphasis was some- surrender would be whether there p. 30. report thing defective on the face of the “Well, my feeling be that at would disputes, Factual such as those refusal form. held, fellow has this where the case, underlying instant would license, might officer turned unpredicta- postponed to be for some up suspension until hold the witnesses period police until the and other witnesses ble then, story in. is told came If a different then be would available. right. Registrar might say, up ‘all Hold giv- at least If a Massachusetts licensee were days get for ten until bot- day” opportunity pre- en a “same to make ” Transcript p. tom this.’ relief, hearing request emergency the exist- Judge Camp- feel that these comments of We ing would cured. constitutional defect be No and, right adopted by the mark if bell are need be taken at this “same evidence would day” hearing. Commonwealth, provide would those in the provided that All need would position constitutionally with a registrar to to alert the facts be an seeking adequate relief. him, discretion, might cause evidentiary hearing up hold until an pointed original opinion, we out in 3. As our existing statutory Under the could held. arresting attest to three matters: officer must he no such discretion. scheme arrested; was that the officer that the licensee Indeed, approach would be consist- such grounds believing that the had reasonable Campbell’s Judge at hear- comments ent ing. operating person a motor vehicle had been intoxicating liquor; influence of under the you provided me if “It seems to person refused to submit to a and that saying, send a letter out to fellow breathalyzer being informed that his test after away your you going T take am suspended would be as a result this, you you If will refuse. want Opinion 429 at n. 1. a refusal. days. five to ask for one in the next have Otherwise, your suspended.’ I would license is breathalyzer We sole objectively respectfully ascertainable. test —the effect our our disagree with brother the three the state interest offend —does police issues which must be set forth in the highways. in safe We conclude that our simple, officer’s affidavit amount “a ob- evaluation, of the Governmental e., event: i. a refusal jectively-ascertainable here, 399-400, at stake 429 F.Supp. at ” test. . to take chemical breath unaffected Love. The facts of this case demonstrate that the Accordingly, court declines modify Here, contrary is true. he plaintiff claims judgment its as a result of the opinion in take willing was the breath test Love. An order will issue. opportunity to do so was denied him. The findings of state judge support his con-

tention. “Breathalyzer refused re- CAMPBELL, when LEVIN H. Circuit Judge one quested within half hour of at being (dissenting). police station. See attached affidavit and I disagree my colleagues’ judgment memorandum. Smith.” action substantially this case is distinguisha- Transcript p. dismissed. Judge ble from Dixon v. Campbell’s query plaintiffs to whether (1977). 52 L.Ed.2d In that “qualifies conduct at the as a station case the Illinois Driver refusal” ignores finding state court’s which, Licensing “point Law system” under the plaintiff was refused the opportu- adopted regulations in Illinois by the Secre- test, nity to take the not the way other State, tary of called for suspen- immediate The around. licensee in Massachusetts is prior sion without the licenses of only presumed not to be in violation of the those whose licenses already had been sus- statute, but is to suffer the ad- pended moving vehicle on violations consequences presumed

verse of such viola- three occasions within ten years. In the any opportunity tion without to be heard.4 present case we are confronted with a Mas- challenged Massachusetts is which, sachusetts law in order compel to simply comparable to that approved in Love. those arrested for drunken to take test, immediate chemical pe- or breath Finally, nothing in our burdens nalizes the refusal to take such a test the Commonwealth’s valid interest in re- 90-day suspension. Like moving unsafe drivers from the highway. law, the Massachusetts law calls for sus- Regardless challenged statute, posi- pension only upon the occurrence sim- of a breathalyzer tive test does not automatical- ple, objectively-ascertainable event: i. e. a ly remove the chronic drunk driver from test, refusal to take chemical or breath the road. He continue to until drive certified to penalties under of perjury by duly Indeed, he Regis- convicted.5 in the witnessing And, the officer the refusal. discretion, a trar’s conviction drunk driv- going beyond any safeguards need in the Illinois ing lead to license revocation. law, Providing provides be prior to heard for a full hear- to automatic for refusal take ing commencing, though not necessarily Moreover, agree Judge way safety. 4. we cannot statutory provision The Illinois Campbell’s conclusion that . . “it . designed which was in Love was imagine refusing hard sober driver to take remove from drivers the road who been had the test or not whether there was cause for his repeatedly convicted for traffic offenses. negative arrest. inference he 97 S.Ct. 1723. Under Mas- draws a little too close too often scheme, statutory summary sachusetts by lay persons willing to assume that drawn any judicial is not based on deter- rights who one relies Fifth Amendment danger public. mination of a driver’s guilty something. must Rather, above, solely as noted it occurs because motorist, sober, whether drunk or refuses statute, 5. contrast Illinois the Massa- to take a chemical test. directly high- chusetts statute does not enhance (1976), 319, 96 47 L.Ed.2d 18 license is U.S. day the same ending, and dismiss injunction I would vacate surrendered.1 complaint. of 884 traffic stipulated1a It in 283 re in fatalities refer- make much of the My colleagues which alcohol was sulted from accidents ence in Love to a for hard- special provision It attributing cause. as the determined ship of commercial licenses.2 and holders approximately stipulated was further is not a commercial plaintiff Since refusing submit were people would, in but he inapposite, the latter is ev analyses tests in Massachusetts breath scheme, license was sus- once his Illinois compelling the state’s ery month. Given as under Massachusetts pended, eligible, on its lessening carnage law for a limited hard- apply he is drivers, by intoxicated highways caused ship permit. minimal restrictions also the statute’s given attempted are answers to this There two liberties, I can see basis on personal First, Massachusetts, unlike Il- distinction. it unconstitutional. declaring whatever com- Eldridge, Mathews v. linois,3 affords a licensee Love Under pro- holding brothers, My agreeing that affect the hear- that there consideratiohs ings immediate with counsel at of this nature. for an vision (see license surrender Note 11 time of the by Judge opinion written Freed- of the court’s Although stipu 1a. did not execute the Tauro), by Judge now and concurred stated, man facts, Hagopian as to Mr. lations response my query “hearings rarely if ever held on assert that as to whether there was They day ap- the license is the parently surrendered”. facts, agreed an (Tr. 3) statement “That is correct.” base this assertion the fact that taken, testimony has to be will be presence necessary continued until nesses, wit- regulation, com Under Illinois law officers, such as the can be se- than mercial licensees allowed rather evidentiary part postponing But cured. mandatory suspension. Eligi offenses before hearing does not alter the that a non- fact bility under section is not auto for relief counsel, evidentiary hearing, with is available matic, requires the commercial driver the licensee on same the license is my suspended”, license “is whose Dixon (See surrendered. Note 11 of brothers’ L.Ed.2d note 97 S.Ct. fully opinion, transcript sup- which main eligibility (1977), after surren to establish attorney ports.) Hagopian, plaintiff’s As Mr. dering any Illinois law also allows license. stated, you Registry “If into down walk suspended or revoked driver whose license is your give Regis- it to the there with trar, you get permit apply for a restricted (Tr. 11) hearing right away.” place his residence and his drive between statutory procedure, un- understand “[A]s limits, proper employment or within other but you get hearing (g) can an der immediate only post-suspension review at the end of 14) (Tr. Hagopi- Registrar.” Mr. before the only early proceeding occurs “as as which (besides objection this an’s already suspended practical” licensee after the comes, view, late) it is that that too fact Id.; 95'A, requested ch. it. see Ill.Ann.Stat. hearing as is on the so much day available Supp. 1977). My 6-206(c)(3) (Smith-Hurd § colleagues is surrendered non-evidentia- the license my view are thus in mistaken your ry. argues, going get “You not He statement, Dixon, the situation in their “Unlike day you back that if contest factual provides opportunity something upon unless there defective issues suspension.” emergency prior relief Massa report face of the affidavit or of refusal opportunity, provides no chusetts nei Still, opportunity appear form.” before ther does Illinois. delegate Registrar’s is none- with counsel “hearing”, non-evidentiary albeit a theless one, plan, suspended licen- affording 3. Under the Illinois holder the license early only point Registrar see was entitled to a “as out errors do practical” days requesting taking within 20 after one. of evidence to resolve. not contrast, Massachusetts, by hearing, is no to when in In And while there evidence as commencing attorney present, testimony present is available im- (see mediately 1). hearing, may normally proceeding note At such a be ex- the continued facts, according stipulated pected, to the “the that is no reason to assume this there Report of to Sub- expedition, officer examines the Refusal with reasonable de- will not occur pending witnesses, availability it is Test to determine mit to Chemical officer, complies requirements complete and the usual schedule mencing very day he pend surrenders his for his subsistence”. (Under Id. sure, license. To be if witnesses are re- Eldridge security beneficiary a social may quired, a continuance may be needed to be deprived of for as much as a benefits bring witnesses, in the material but if the year take hearings place.) or more while issue can be resolved without witnesses it “Moreover, went say, on to and, can disposed of the same day, risk deprivation of an erroneous the ab- there is no reason to suppose the tak- great.” sence of a not prior hearing is ing of evidence will proceed not with rea- same is true only question here. The is the Illinois, dispatch. sonable on the other existence or non-existence a readily ob- hand, have to wait for servable fact. One is hard put to think of a some time after of his license for genuine factual legal issue which would a hearing. only opportunity His is to apply exist in the generality sure, of cases. To be after for a hardship permit (the here, the issue asserts whether an consideration granting of which may, initial refusal followed by request a later presumably, time). take some In Massa- qualifies take the test refusal, as a may be chusetts, one gets hearing commencing the rare exception. If an arrestee can wait surrendered; the same day the license is until his blood or breath levels show less and the features my brothers think most alcohol, the usefulness of the test is dimin- alerting essential —i. e. Registrar to the ished; hand, on the other possibility that suspension is unwarranted state courts may find it unreasonable for and would be unjust place take —can the police not to accommodate a change of could, very day and in the case of clerical or heart good made in faith with reasonable errors, other obvious result in return of the settled, however, promptness. Once such a (See license then and there. Note matter of statutory interpretation would be opinion.) court’s Thus to the extent nonrecurring; and it is imagine difficult to Illinois hardship provision is seen as adding similar issues that to arise in the suspended process licensee’s due administration of this utterly simple stat- rights,4 the opportunity in Massachusetts ute. for a commencing same that the license is surrendered seems to me sure, To be a driver might assert that the fully adequate counterpart but had the test after arresting quite possibly improvement. him without cause. But it imag- is hard to ine a sober driver refusing to take the test

The second doubting reason for that the whether or not there was cause for his Illinois hardship provision adequately dis- arrest; arrested, if improperly he would tinguishes Love is that provision, take cited, arrest, the test and sue for false but one of a number of factors put discussed in his license in hardly jeopardy. and And if the most cru- cial. The Court licensee feels that pointed out that “a he is the victim driver’s of false license may police affidavits, not be so vital and essential as he would be a raising are social payments insurance with in claim to which point system [dealt is Eldridge on which the recipient may de- equally police ] vulnerable. If a officer or 24(l)(f). Report of hearing Ch. If the § is not com- to allow the officer to interview wit- plete comply, hearing or does not officer nesses in the field. returns the driver’s in hand to the licen- hearing may questioned “Witnesses at a Report complete complies, see. If the and officer, hearing licensee, or a or his the burden is on the licensee to show that one attorney. From an adverse decision of the of the factual issues set forth in Ch. 90 Registrar, may appeal a licensee take an 24(l)(g) e., negative, was in the § i. there was Appeals pursuant Board of to G.L. Ch. 90 cause, probable arrest, no or no refusal to 28.” hearing adjourn submit. The officer will I take it there is no claim that the Constitu- request, upon request at his own or grants any right tion substantive to receive a licensee, permit of the to officers or permit notwithstanding driver’s a re- brought question- other witnesses to be in fusal to submit to a chemical or breath test.

ing, submitted, or for counter affidavits to every Giving in case. tion licen- to deliberately commit willing bureaucrat automatically to ob- must sees ultimate recourse the choice thus the citizen’s perjury, a federal tort and of and tain a in the effectiveness delay various state be under 1,000 out encourage In 999 cases of statutes. would criminal or revocation try be to will ever see what there routinely request I cannot full adminis- drivers to take a of refusal concerning the fact .” hearings . . . 431 U.S. trative that, conceding test. And chemical blood 114, 97 S.Ct. at 1728. occasion, case one meritorious a rare My implica- brothers seek to avoid immediate arise, will by stating they tions this statement seems Massachusetts affords hearing which constitutionally require do not nor view as hardship.5 While go me far to obviate evidentiary pre-suspension “a necessary disput- a involve rare case would hearing”. plaintiff’s They concur evidence, taking requiring ed facts who, argument, made the final counsel in thus involve surrender of would upon insist hear- “we do not statement interim, in it does not seem re- notice and an ing just— who, a licensee unfair however, that in spond.” forgets, Plaintiff the officers has declined sworn affidavits of inadequacy arguing test, up with that hard- put to take when Registry which the offers way— other ship. To strike the balance the license, principal argu- surrenders litigate unlikely such an permit people hearing when com- ment was that their licenses'— retaining question in- non-evidentiary, menced was and hence an unfair added impose to me seems immediately resolving the factu- capable ultimately society burden I dispute suggest al which had arisen. costs of drunken pays both the non-evidentiary pre-suspension hearing offi- registry salaries of the additional totally plaintiff. been useless to would have needed to administer more elaborate cials light in His case can be resolved system. as he seemed to concede. testimony, See great difficulty my I have Finally, note 1 Individuals such as supra. “nothing assertion that brothers' confident factually disputed who wish to assert a in our burdens the Commonwealth’s gain nothing claim will from non-eviden- removing interest unsafe drivers valid hearing. All tiary non-evidentiary hear- may This be their highway.” from ing prior would do is cure belief, clearly but it not shared simple mix-ups. per- But this function Legislature, fectly accomplished by well non-eviden- General, Vehicles, or all Attorney Motor a licensee tiary obtain charged, whom are as the federal courts duty with the to make this he surrenders his license. What primary judgment. argued my opportu- As earli- now provides sort —the as the dissenting opinion, er Love Court nity hearing beginning a full said, day the driver hands his license —seems to me a reasonable balance be- public to strike “. the substantial tween the individual’s interests and those of efficiency would be im- administrative pretermina- of a the state. peded by availability recognized possibility simple, Love have been resolved in the non-eviden-

5. The tiary presuspension hearing type but felt this which is all occasional clerical error did constitutionally necessary outweigh summary pro- my say in is brothers state’s scheme, Overall, point suspension. Simple type before a errors of the cedures. feature, my might procedure which Love brothers’ eliminate can be one small far complicated simple existing law more than the Massa- solved under us, inviting chusetts statute now before more either informal communication between registrar, police claim here and the or else at administrative errors. Plaintiff’s driver and/or course, non-evidentiary hearing error the same based on administrative at available plainly question all. It raises a could not driver turns in his license. moreover, focusing, It is worth on the

problem faced Massachusetts. It is deal- George F. Barbara CALABI and E. St. ing with a problem drivers re- —arrested Gelais, Plaintiffs fusing to take the test —which even under challenged system arises in that state 300 times a Meaning- month. ful to deal machinery with the problem has Landsman, Biederman, P. Carol A. Alan capable be mass administration. In- Young, Kellyhouse, W. J. John Edward toxicated drivers can often talk their way Woodworth, Eugene Quinn, Jr., John J. conviction, out of a drunken LeClair, Gerald John A. Terrien P. b/n/f court, if the do not have in hand the Terrien, Philip Manning, William O. results of a scientific test taken Dolliver, Garry Hall, T. Richard C. Ste- moment of arrest. To the drivers extent Roberts, phen Joseph M. Conrad Esti- are afforded opportunities increased before vill, Abruscato, Paul M. John Charles J. delay litigate any suspen- Sargent, Dole, Railton, Brian Richard sion, they encouraged try will their Freedland, Dwyer, Dennis J. Marshall chances finally with a refusal. Even if Brown, Blair Eric Conner James forego the (for 90 days) Doolan, Plaintiff-Intervenors, much transpired, time will have and the state will had to expend have time and

money virtually in what all instances will MALLOY, James E. Commissioner proceedings useless administrative in- Department simply buy Vehicles, voked time or in the Vermont hope of Motor up. favorable something Individually will turn Capacity. and in his Official I think that Massachusetts could rational- Civ. A. No. 75-264. question ly determine that was the most effective one. practical and Court, United States District non-evidentiary pre-suspension hearing D. Vermont. my require brothers will add no seem Oct. sys- protection present measurable tem; if, hand, on the other mean to they Reg- will enable the

istrar delay suspension until after inves- facts, pro-

tigation they into contested

posing something which will constitute a present

serious encumbrance. Since the fair, it

system fundamentally since compel-

devised with a problem to deal state,

ling importance to the it was since (most drive)

adopted by the of whom people

through legislators (most their whom

drive), the potential and since

to an innocent seems min- person altogether

imal comparison the interests

served, think the Massachusetts law

should be sustained. While there are incon-

sequential differences between it and the system princi-

Illinois at issue in

ples in Love seem to me dispositive.

I would allow the motion for reconsidera-

tion, injunction, vacate and dismiss the

complaint.

Case Details

Case Name: Montrym v. Panora

Court Name: District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date Published: Oct 31, 1977

Citation: 438 F. Supp. 1157

Docket Number: CA 76-2560-F

Court Abbreviation: D. Mass.