 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles5/9/1990
number of hearings sought and therefore impose a substantial fiscal and administrative burden on the Commonwealth." Id. at 18, citing Dixon v. Love, supra, at 114. The sole purpose of the post-suspension hearing at issue is to determine whether appellee was in fact convicted three times for DWI in the three immediately preceding years. The cost in time and money related to an expanded evidentiary hearing, as demanded by appellee, does not justify such a requirement. No purpose would be served by permitting evidence to be presented as to whether the individual is or is not an alcoholic each time the Registrar proceeds to suspend a license pursuant to R.C. 4507.08.
We therefore conclude that Ohio Adm. Code 4501: 1-1-16(B)(1) reasonably defines the term "alcoholic" so as to carry out the legislative purpose of R.C. 4507.08. The rule does not violate the due course of law provision of the Ohio Constitution.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
HOLMES, J., concurs in judgment only.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|