8-288.
Same; restriction of driver's license; exception.
Except as allowed under subsection (d)(4) of K.S.A. 8-235, and amendments thereto, no license to operate a motor vehicle in Kansas shall be issued to a person for a period of three years from the date of the division's order revoking such person's driving privileges pursuant to K.S.A. 8-286, and amendments thereto, and until the person's driving privileges have been restored.
History:
L. 1972, ch. 32, § 5; L. 1984, ch. 37, § 3; L. 1994, ch. 353, § 7; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 9; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Violation of city ordinance counts toward habitual violator conviction only when specifically provided by K.S.A. 8-285. State v. Wood, 231 Kan. 699, 702, 647 P.2d 1327 (1982).
2. Neither general civil nor general criminal statutes of limitations applies to habitual violator proceedings. State v. Graham, 12 Kan. App. 2d 803, 809, 758 P.2d 247 (1988).
3. Habitual violator act examined; civil nature of action noted, with actual conviction dates controlling five-year period (K.S.A. 8-285). State v. Walden, 15 Kan. App. 2d 139, 142, 803 P.2d 1054 (1991).
4. Cited; use of same convictions to support successive habitual violator petitions in regard to collateral estoppel. State v. Day, 17 Kan. App. 2d 737, 739, 843 P.2d 294 (1992).
5. Court restoration of driving privileges examined. State v. Browning, 17 Kan. App. 2d 768, 769, 770, 844 P.2d 739 (1993).
6. Operating vehicle with revoked license must occur within three-year period following revocation for habitual violator purposes. State v. Proffitt, 261 Kan. 526, 528, 533, 930 P.2d 1059 (1997).
State v. Proffitt, 930 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 6דThe district court dismissed the complaint based upon what it termed “vagueness” in K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 8-288 as to how a habitual violator’s driving privileges could be restored.”
State v. Heironimus, 941 P.2d 1356 (Kan. 1997). “8-287 and K.S.A. 8-288, a habitual violator was guilty of a class-E felony and was not to be issued a'driver’s license for 3 years from the date of the district court order.”
State v. Graham, 758 P.2d 247 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “” KS.A. 1987 Supp. 8-288 provides in part: *809 “(a) No license to operate a motor vehicle in Kansas shall be issued to a convicted habitual violator: “(1) For a period of three years from the date of the order of the court finding the person to be a habitual violator; and “(2)…”
State v. Day, 843 P.2d 294 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “8-286; K.S.A. 8-288. The legislature clearly intended to get dangerous drivers off the road.”
State v. Walden, 803 P.2d 1054 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2דThe district court must then issue the person a summons to appear for a show cause hearing on whether the person should be convicted of being a habitual violator. If the court finds the accused is the same person named in the driving records and the abstract of convictions is…”
State v. Browning, 844 P.2d 739 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2דDoes K.S.A. 8-288 provide that a person who has been found to be a habitual violator continues in that status for three years from the date he or she is found to be a habitual violator, or does the habitual violator status continue until the court restores the person’s driving…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.