Morales v. Ingels

California Court of Appeal Dec 27, 1938 No. Civ. 2157Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of mandate was improperly issued because the petitioner failed to show the respondents had a legal duty to issue a license, as the director was statutorily prohibited from reissuing the license within one year of revocation.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in ordering the issuance of an operator's license when the director was statutorily prohibited from reissuing it within one year of revocation.
Whether a writ of mandate may be used to compel the issuance of a license when the petitioner failed to allege an abuse of discretion by the administrative board.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The only step in the proceeding required to be performed and which was not performed was the preparation by the trial board of findings.”

“A writ of mandate may not issue to compel an officer or board to act in any particular way except in the performance of ministerial duties, and never to control the exercise of discretion unless it has been abused”

GRIFFIN, J.

—On the 18th day of September, 1937, a petition for a writ of mandate was filed in the Superior Court

[183]

of Orange County by Alex Morales, Jr., petitioner and respondent, against appellants Ray Ingels, as Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California, and Paul Mason, as Chief of the Division of Drivers’ Licenses of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California, praying for an alternative writ, commanding them to issue to petitioner an operator’s license to drive and operate motor vehicles upon the highways of the state of California or show cause before the court why they have not done so. An alternative writ was so issued. On December 7, 1937, the day of the hearing, a judgment was made ordering appellants forthwith to issue to petitioner an operator’s license. The appeal is from this judgment.

The amended petition for the writ presents in substance the following facts: On the 17th day of December, 1936, petitioner was notified in writing by Paul Mason, as Chief of the Division of Drivers’ Licenses, that his privilege to operate a motor vehicle had been revoked by the department in accordance with the provisions of section 314 (a), subdivision (3) of the Vehicle Code, for the reason that he was an habitual violator of the traffic laws according to the records of the department, and petitioner was requested to surrender his operator’s license unless a hearing was demanded in accordance with section 314 (d) of the Vehicle Code. Petitioner demanded a hearing. The hearing was properly held at the time and place specified, before a board of three officers of the department. The petitioner was present with counsel and testimony was taken. At the conclusion of the hearing petitioner was informed that findings would be prepared and presented to Ray Ingels, as Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The following report was made by the board:

“Report of Findings, Review of Testimony and Recommendation for Revocation of Driving Privilege.

“Re: Alex Morales.

“Upon the conclusion of the hearing of Alex Morales, 410 South Olive, Anaheim, California, and upon reviewing the testimony, it is the recommendation of the Board that the order of the Director revoking the driving privilege of Alex Morales be sustained.

Morales v. Ingels

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief