(1)(a) Within ninety days after the receipt by the Department of Transportation of a report of a motor vehicle accident within this state which has resulted in bodily injury or death, or damage to the property of any one person, including such operator, to an apparent extent of two thousand dollars or more, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall suspend (i) the license of each operator of a motor vehicle in any manner involved in such accident and (ii) the privilege, if such operator is a nonresident, of operating a motor vehicle within this state, unless such operator deposits security in a sum which shall be sufficient, in the judgment of the Department of Motor Vehicles, to satisfy any judgment or judgments for damages resulting from such accident which may be recovered against such operator and unless such operator gives proof of financial responsibility. Notice of such suspension shall be sent by the Department of Motor Vehicles by regular United States mail to such operator not less than twenty days prior to the effective date of such suspension at his or her last-known mailing address as shown by the records of the department and shall state the amount required as security and the requirement of proof of financial responsibility.
(b) In the event a person involved in a motor vehicle accident within this state fails to make a report to the Department of Motor Vehicles indicating the extent of his or her injuries or the damage to his or her property within thirty days after the accident, and the department does not have sufficient information on which to base an evaluation of such injury or damage, the department, after reasonable notice to such person, may not require any deposit of security for the benefit or protection of such person.
(c) If the operator fails to respond to the notice on or before twenty days after the date of the notice, the director shall summarily suspend the operator's license or privilege and issue an order of suspension.
(2) The order of suspension provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall not be entered by the Department of Motor Vehicles if the department determines that in its judgment there is no reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against such operator.
(3) In determining whether there is a reasonable possibility of judgment being rendered against such operator, the department shall consider all reports and information filed in connection with the accident.
(4) The order of suspension provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall advise the operator that he or she has a right to appeal the order of suspension in accordance with section 60-503.
(5) The order of suspension provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be sent by regular United States mail to the operator's last-known mailing address as shown by the records of the department.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1952–1995 · leading case:
Russell v. State, 531 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 1995).
Russell v. State, 531 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 14× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (1) (Reissue 1993) provides that the DMV shall suspend the operator’s license of a person involved in an accident in Nebraska which results in bodily injury, death, or property damage in excess of $500 unless the operator provides proof of financial…”
Clayton v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 524 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 11× “However, § 60-507 does not apply if the operator or owner is able to respond in damages or had an automobile liability policy in effect at the time of the accident.”
Wollenburg v. Conrad, 522 N.W.2d 408 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 8× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Summarized and restated, Wollenburg claims that the district court erred in (1) finding that DMV complied with the notice requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (Reissue 1993), (2) finding that DMV’s determination of a reasonable possibility of a judgment…”
Montgomery v. Blazek, 73 N.W.2d 402 (Neb. 1955).
· cites it 9× “, 1953, provides: “Within sixty days after the receipt of a report of a motor vehicle accident within this state which has resulted in bodily injury or death, or damage to the property of any one person, including such operator, to an apparent extent in excess of one hundred…”
Berg v. Pearson, 259 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Berg, for fail *391 ure to comply with the requirements of section 60-507, R. R. S. 1943, of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act.”
Moore v. Pechar (In Re Pechar), 78 B.R. 568 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1987).
· cites it 4× “*569 In addition to being without liability insurance at the time of the accident, the debtor was unable to prove to the State of Nebraska that he would be able to pay any judgments obtained against him as a result of the accident and, therefore, his driver’s license was…”
Hadden v. Aitken, 55 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 1952).
· cites it 3× “” § 60-507, R. R. S. 1943. In view of the accident being reported and in accordance with the provisions of the Act hereinbefore quoted, appellee not coming within any of the situations enumerated in sections 60-508 and 60-510, R.”
State v. Jones, 332 N.W.2d 702 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (Reissue 1978). On July 9, 1981, the department ordered defendant’s operator’s license suspended effective August 3, 1981, and sent a copy of that order by U.”
Pechar v. Moore, 98 B.R. 488 (D. Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Thus, the appellant’s driver’s license was suspended under the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-507. The appellee sued the appellant in the district court of Douglas County, Nebraska, in May of 1986.”
Wroblewski v. Pearson, 313 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Wroblewski, for failure to comply with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (Reissue 1978) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act.”
Hehn v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehs., 290 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Section 60-507 (3) provides: “(3) In determining whether there is a reasonable possibility of judgment being rendered against such operator, the department shall consider all reports and information filed in connection with the accident.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507(1) — 3 cases
Wollenburg v. Conrad, 522 N.W.2d 408 (Neb. 1994).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Summarized and restated, Wollenburg claims that the district court erred in (1) finding that DMV complied with the notice requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (Reissue 1993), (2) finding that DMV’s determination of a reasonable possibility of a judgment…”
Clayton v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 524 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 1994).
“However, § 60-507 does not apply if the operator or owner is able to respond in damages or had an automobile liability policy in effect at the time of the accident.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507(2) — 3 cases
Clayton v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 524 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 1994).
“However, § 60-507 does not apply if the operator or owner is able to respond in damages or had an automobile liability policy in effect at the time of the accident.”
Russell v. State, 531 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 1995).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (1) (Reissue 1993) provides that the DMV shall suspend the operator’s license of a person involved in an accident in Nebraska which results in bodily injury, death, or property damage in excess of $500 unless the operator provides proof of financial…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507(3) — 3 cases
Clayton v. Neb. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 524 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 1994).
“However, § 60-507 does not apply if the operator or owner is able to respond in damages or had an automobile liability policy in effect at the time of the accident.”
Wollenburg v. Conrad, 522 N.W.2d 408 (Neb. 1994).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Summarized and restated, Wollenburg claims that the district court erred in (1) finding that DMV complied with the notice requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-507 (Reissue 1993), (2) finding that DMV’s determination of a reasonable possibility of a judgment…”
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.