In Stauffer v. Weedlun, the Nebraska Supreme Court held revocation of a driver's license upon accumulation of twelve or more traffic violation points meets due process requirements despite the absence of statutory provisions for prior hearing and notice to the driver. The decision merits further consideration in light of an earlier case, Bell v. Burson, in which the United States Supreme Court held due process was violated when a driver's license was suspended pursuant to a financial responsibility law, because of lack of a prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the driver's possible liability. This casenote considers the grounds on which the Nebraska Supreme Court distinguished revocation of a driver's license for traffic violations from suspension pursuant to financial responsibility laws. Specifically, analysis will focus on the Nebraska Supreme Court's reliance on the "emergency doctrine" and the court's decision that a judicial stay of the order of revocation pending judicial review affords the licensee due process.
Clark R. Irey,
Due Process—Revocation of Driver’s License: Stauffer v. Weedlun, 188 Neb. 105, 195 N.W.2.d 218 (1972),
52 Neb. L. Rev. 412
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol52/iss3/5