Langston v. State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles
| Citation | 110 Nev. 342,871 P.2d 362 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24261,24261 |
| Parties | Melanie Marie LANGSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
John G. Watkins, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Atty. Gen. and Laurie B. Foremaster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant's petition for judicial review and affirming the appeals officer's decision to revoke appellant's driver's license. The state has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot.
The state contends that this appeal is moot because the period of revocation of appellant's driver's license has expired. Thus, argues the state, this court is unable to grant appellant any effective relief. See NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 624 P.2d 10 (1981).
Appellant presents four arguments as to why this court should not dismiss her appeal as moot. Appellant first argues that this court should not dismiss her appeal because collateral consequences exist from the revocation of her driver's license. As collateral consequences, appellant lists the following: 1) the requirement of filing an SR-22 form at a cost of "thousands of dollars"; 2) enhancement of the revocation period for subsequent revocation actions; 3) loss of entitlement to a restricted license for subsequent revocation actions; 4) taking the written and driving examinations; 5) license reinstatement fees; 6) a minimum of thirty days jail time if appellant drives before reinstatement. Appellant provides no authority for the existence of any of these alleged collateral consequences. We conclude that none of these collateral consequences are of sufficient significance to create a substantial controversy. We note specifically that the requirement under NRS 483.525 that appellant provide proof of financial responsibility before the department of motor vehicles can restore her driver's license does not differ significantly from the requirement placed on all Nevadans.
Appellant next argues that her case is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," and therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine. If an issue is capable of repetition, yet will evade review, the issue will not be treated as moot. See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). In the instant case, the issues raised by appellant are factually specific to her case and are therefore not of the character considered capable of repetition. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...(citing Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546-47, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) ); Langston v. State, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (same) (citing S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U.S. 498, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 3......
-
Governor v. Nevada State Legislature
...note 2, at 567-72. 42. NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981). 43. See, e.g., Langston v. Nevada, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994). 44. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 45. We reject counter-petitioners' attempt ......
-
Personhood Nev. v. Bristol
...effective relief with respect to the district court injunction at issue, and this appeal is moot. See Langston v. State, Dep't of Mtr. Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 364 (1994). Even when an appeal is moot, however, we may consider it if it involves a matter of widespread import......
-
Guinn v. Legislature of the State
...note 2, at 567-72. 42. NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981). 43. See, e.g., Langston v. Nevada, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994). 44. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 45. We reject counter-petitioners' attempt to avoid the mootness bar unde......