OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers New Hampshire County
REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES V GEORGE
Plaintiff’s driver’s license was suspended by the state of New Hampshire for failure to submit to a blood alcohol test and conviction for OUI. The registrar in Massachusetts revoked plaintiff’s license until the end of New Hampshire’s suspension.
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts) affirming the registrar’s suspension of plaintiff’s Massachusetts driver’s license.
- Whether the Massachusetts law entitled the Plaintiff to a hardship hearing?
This court finds that the Plaintiff contentions (1) his license was improperly revoked without a hearing by the registrar (2) because the transcript of the hearing was not included in the administrative record, there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the decision and (3) that Massachusetts law entitled him to a hardship hearing. In response, the Board maintained that both substantial evidence and applicable law supported its decision. The court stated the board’s interpretation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 22(c), authorizing the registrar to suspend plaintiff’s license for a period equal to that allowed under New Hampshire law was reasonable. The court affirmed the decision of the board stating that plaintiff could not successfully argue that the lawful absence of a pre-termination hearing before the registrar entitled him to judgment on appeal.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.