Burson v. Bell
Decision Date | 03 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 44887,No. 2,44887,2 |
Citation | 174 S.E.2d 235,121 Ga.App. 418 |
Parties | R. H. BURSON, Director v. Paul J. BELL, Jr |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry H. Evans, Atlanta, for appellant.
William H. Traylor, Elizabeth R. Rindskopf, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal arises from a suspension of the driver's license and vehicle registration of Paul J. Bell under the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (hereafter called the 'Act'). Code Ann. § 92A-601 et seq. (Ga.L.1951, p. 565 et seq., as amended).
On November 24, 1968 Bell was involved in an accident with a bicycle. A report of the accident was filed with the Department of Public Safety. Subsequently, affidavits relating to bodily injury were also filed with the Director. Upon receipt of these affidavits the Director issued an 'Order of Suspension' which notified Bell that on a certain date the suspension of his driver's license and vehicle registration would become effective in accordance with Georgia Laws 1951, Act 386. The notice to Bell stated that the suspension would become effective unless he either (1) submitted a notarized release from all persons who suffered personal or property damage, or (2) deposited security or posted bond sufficient to satisfy any judgment for damages resulting from the accident. The notice also stated that Bell would be required to file proof of financial responsibility for a period of one year and pay a restoration fee of $10 prior to the effective date of the suspension.
Bell requested a hearing before the Director which was granted. But the Director ruled that Bell must comply with the provisions of the suspension order or the suspension would become effective. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act (Code Ann. § 92A-601, as amended), Bell appealed the Director's ruling to the superior court for a de novo hearing. By stipulation of the parties the following facts were developed at the de novo hearing:
The trial court entered an order which, after summarizing the above facts, states the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Burson
...whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident. Pp. 539 543. 121 Ga.App. 418, 174 S.E.2d 235, reversed and Elizabeth R. Rindskopf, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Dorothy T. Beasley, Atlan......
- Seagraves v. Kelley
-
Payne v. State, 51593
...due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, reversing 121 Ga.App. 418, 174 S.E.2d 235. We believe that the hearing afforded the appellant in the City Court of Atlanta satisfies procedural due process and that her convict......
-
Burson v. Bell, 44887
...States in Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, having reversed the judgment of this court in Burson v. Bell, 121 Ga.App. 418, 174 S.E.2d 235, and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion, the prior judgment of this cour......