 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chapman v. Department of Motor Vehicles5/18/1999
Designated for Permanent Publication
___N.W.2d___
1. Default Judgments: Pleadings: Damages. In the case of an original action filed in the district court, the failure of a defendant to file a responsive pleading entitles the plaintiff to a default judgment, without evidence in support of the allegations of the petition, except as to allegations of value or damages.
2. Statutes: Courts. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and a court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
3. Statutes. Statutory language is to be interpreted so as to reach a sensible and harmonious, rather than an absurd, result, as well as a result which best achieves the purposes of the statute.
Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: GEORGE A. THOMPSON, Judge. AFFIRMED.
I. INTRODUCTION
Robert M. Chapman appeals from an order of the district court affirming the decision of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to administratively revoke Chapman;s driver;s license, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-6,205 to 60-6,208 (Reissue 1993 & Cum. Supp. 1996), for Chapman;s refusal to submit to a chemical test, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §60-6,197 (Cum. Supp. 1996). On appeal, Chapman asserts that he was entitled to a default judgment from the district court and that he was not adequately advised of the procedures of administrative license revocation. Finding no merit to Chapman;s assertions on appeal, we affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Chapman was stopped by a police officer on August 19, 1996. As a result of the traffic stop, the officer attempted to administer a preliminary breath test, which Chapman refused. The officer placed Chapman under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and refusing to take the preliminary breath test. Chapman was transported to the Sarpy County jail, where he was directed to submit to a post-arrest chemical test. Chapman also refused to submit to that test.
According to the evidence in the record, the arresting officer advised Chapman of the consequences set forth on a post-arrest chemical test advisement form. Specifically, the advisement form indicated that " efusal to submit to such test or tests is a separate crime for which you may be charged." Additionally, Chapman was provided a copy of a "Sworn Report," which contained a section titled "Operation of Administrative License Revocation How to Request a Hearing." That section contained a brief statement of the revocation procedure. Finally, the advisement form informed Chapman of the relevant rules and regulations for the hearing procedure, as well as notifying him how to obtain a copy of the rules and regulations.
On September 19, 1996, DMV entered an order revoking Chapman;s driver;s license for a period of 1 year, based on his refusal to submit to a post-arrest chemical test. Chapman filed his petition on October 2 for judicial review of the administrative decision, pursuant to § 60-6,208.
On April 1, 1997, Chapman moved the trial court for a default judgment, arguing that no answer was ever filed in response to his petition for judicial review. The court took the request under advisement, and no ruling thereon appears in the record. However, the court proceeded with a hearing on June 13, wherein the county attorney appeared on behalf of DMV. After the hearing, the court affirmed the decision of DMV. Chapman appealed to this court.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, Chapman has assigned four errors, which we have consolidated for Discus
Page 1 2 3 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|