Rios v. Cozens

509 P.2d 696, 9 Cal. 3d 454, 107 Cal. Rptr. 784, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 200
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 9, 1973
DocketSac. 7916
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 509 P.2d 696 (Rios v. Cozens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rios v. Cozens, 509 P.2d 696, 9 Cal. 3d 454, 107 Cal. Rptr. 784, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 200 (Cal. 1973).

Opinion

*455 Opinion

THE COURT.

The Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 1973, issued its judgment and mandate that the judgment of this court be vacated and the cause be remanded to us for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.

The opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reported at 410 U.S. 425 [35 L.Ed.2d 398, 93 S.Ct. 1019], states in part that “[w]e are unable to determine . . . whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both .... We therefore grant the State of California’s petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California, and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. [Citations.]”

Pursuant to the mandate hereinabove quoted we have reexamined our opinion in the subject case (reported at 7 Cal.3d 792 [103 Cal.Rptr. 299, 499 P.2d 979]) and certify that we relied upon both the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 13, of the California Constitution, and that, accordingly, the latter provision furnished an independent ground to support the result we reached in that opinion. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter or amend our prior decision, we reiterate and reinstate that decision in its entirety.

Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondents to revoke the order suspending petitioner’s license and to provide petitioner, upon due notice, a hearing on the suspension of his license.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Andrade v. Purviance CA1/1
California Court of Appeal, 2021
Berjikian v. Franchise Tax Board CA2/7
California Court of Appeal, 2015
Menge v. Reed
84 Cal. App. 4th 1134 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Honsickle v. Superior Court
82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 36 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
Love v. City of Monterey
37 Cal. App. 4th 562 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Kirkpatrick v. City of Oceanside
232 Cal. App. 3d 267 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Nichols v. County of Santa Clara
223 Cal. App. 3d 1236 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Trihedron International Assurance, Ltd. v. Superior Court
218 Cal. App. 3d 934 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Bennett v. Bodily
211 Cal. App. 3d 133 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Sutake v. Orange County Federal Credit Union
186 Cal. App. 3d 140 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Kreutzer v. County of San Diego
153 Cal. App. 3d 62 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
Habrun v. Department of Social Services
145 Cal. App. 3d 318 (California Court of Appeal, 1983)
Rumford v. City of Berkeley
645 P.2d 124 (California Supreme Court, 1982)
County of Sacramento v. Lackner
97 Cal. App. 3d 576 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Civil Service Employees Insurance v. Superior Court
584 P.2d 497 (California Supreme Court, 1978)
Anacker v. Sillas
65 Cal. App. 3d 416 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Skelly v. State Personnel Board
539 P.2d 774 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education
51 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Beaudreau v. Superior Court
535 P.2d 713 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
Greer v. Board of Education of Santa Rosa City School District
47 Cal. App. 3d 98 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 P.2d 696, 9 Cal. 3d 454, 107 Cal. Rptr. 784, 1973 Cal. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-cozens-cal-1973.