constitutional due process requirement (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

constitutional due process requirement in Oklahoma

8 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Robertson v. State Ex Rel. Lestergreen
okla · 1972 · cited in 5 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1975–2016
2 sentences

2016"The Oklahoma Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner." Robertson , 1972 OK 126, ¶ 10 , 501 P.2d at 1102 .

2016"The Oklahoma Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner." Robertson , 1972 OK 126, ¶ 10 , 501 P.2d at 1102 .

35
Price v. Reedgreen
okla · 1986 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016A person's "claim to a driver's license is indeed a protectable property interest that may not be terminated without due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." Price v. Reed , 1986 OK 43 , ¶ 11, 725 P.2d 1254, 1260 . ¶13 Under this administrative scheme, two statutory prerequisites are fundamental to DPS' power to revoke a license: 1) a blood or breath test report or the driver's refusal of such a test; and 2) the officer's sworn report that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving under the influence.

2016A person's "claim to a driver's license is indeed a protectable property interest that may not be terminated without due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." Price v. Reed , 1986 OK 43, ¶ 11, 725 P.2d 1254, 1260. ¶13 Under this administrative scheme, two statutory prerequisites are fundamental to DPS' power to revoke a license: 1) a blood or breath test report or the driver's refusal of such a test; and 2) the officer's sworn report that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving under the influence.

12
Estelle v. McGuiregreen
scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 72-73 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

2011See also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, 72-73 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

11
Engle v. Isaacgreen
scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Not every violation of state law rises to the level of a constitutional due process violation. "[A] mere error of state law," we have noted, "is not a denial of due process." Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121, n. 21 , 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011Not every violation of state law rises to the level of a constitutional due process violation. "[A] mere error of state law," we have noted, "is not a denial of due process." Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121, n. 21 , 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Dablemont v. State, Department of Public Safety green
okla · 1975
2 sentences

2009Lester, 1972 OK 126 , 501 P.2d 1099 , addressed the constitutional due process requirement of Oklahoma's Implied Consent Law finding that the "Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner." Id. at ¶ 12, 501 P.2d at 1101 (emphasis added). ¶ 15 In Dablemont v. State of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, 1975 OK 162 , 543 P.2d 563 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court again addressed constitutional ch

2009Lester, 1972 OK 126 , 501 P.2d 1099 , addressed the constitutional due process requirement of Oklahoma's Implied Consent Law finding that the "Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner." Id. at ¶ 12, 501 P.2d at 1101 (emphasis added). ¶ 15 In Dablemont v. State of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, 1975 OK 162 , 543 P.2d 563 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court again addressed constitutional ch

22009–2009
Trusty v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety green
okla · 2016
2 sentences

2017"The Oklahoma Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner ." (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Id.

2017"The Oklahoma Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner ." (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Id.

12017–2017
Bell v. Burson green
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

2009Although in the final analysis the Supreme Court did not address the constitutional challenges because the licensee lacked standing, it noted that if the licensee did have standing, consideration of the impact of the United States Supreme Court case of Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , 91 S.Ct. 1586 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) "might" be necessary.

2009Although in the final analysis the Supreme Court did not address the constitutional challenges because the licensee lacked standing, it noted that if the licensee did have standing, consideration of the impact of the United States Supreme Court case of Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , 91 S.Ct. 1586 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) "might" be necessary.

12009–2009
Pickens v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1989
2 sentences

1996Pickens, 779 P.2d at 597-598 .

1996Pickens, 779 P.2d at 597-598 .

11996–1996
In Re Metcalf green
okla · 1972
1 sentence

1975Lester, Okl., 501 P.2d 1099 , this Court held: “The Oklahoma Implied Consent Law conforms to the constitutional due process requirement by providing notice and opportunity for hearing, providing for administrative hearing subject to judicial review and applying to all licensed motorists in an identical manner.” In the case of In Re Metcalf, Okl., 501 P.2d 208 , we held that neither this Court nor the trial court may consider undue hardship as a ground to vacate or modify an order of the Department of Public Safety in a statutory proceeding to suspend a person’s driver’s license.

11975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 754 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WV 59 (1979–2025) CA 51 (1976–2026) TX 39 (1982–2026) MI 30 (1987–2026) WA 27 (1975–2026) IL 24 (1979–2026) CT 19 (1980–2022) KS 19 (1982–2024) FL 17 (1974–2020) PA 16 (1971–2026) LA 16 (1975–2025) OH 14 (1977–2026) NY 14 (1958–2025) WI 13 (1987–2025) GA 12 (1988–2026) IA 12 (1976–2021) TN 10 (2005–2021) CO 10 (1995–2025) ME 9 (1968–2015) HI 8 (2001–2025) OK 8 (1975–2017) MD 7 (1986–2015) MO 7 (1993–2018) IN 7 (1977–2023) ID 7 (1958–2020) MA 6 (1993–2020) OR 6 (2013–2025) DC 5 (1984–2023) NM 5 (1980–2012) VA 5 (2004–2025) AL 4 (1986–1995) VT 3 (2016–2024) AZ 3 (2005–2011) NV 3 (2016–2017) ND 3 (1976–2000) NH 3 (1979–2002) NC 3 (1990–2010) MS 2 (1998–2022) NE 2 (1971–2020) KY 2 (2011–2021) UT 2 (2020–2025) AK 2 (1984–2012) DE 2 (2021–2021) MN 2 (2013–2015) SD 2 (2002–2002) NJ 2 (2002–2019) RI 2 (1994–2009) PR 2 (1952–1953) WY 2 (1979–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check