# Director, Department of Public Safety v. Irvine

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · August 7, 1992 · 603 So. 2d 1074

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7602906

## Case

- **Full name:** DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. Phillip Eugene IRVINE, Jr.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 7, 1992
- **Citations:** 603 So. 2d 1074; 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 380; 1992 WL 186049
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robertson
- **Judges:** Thigpen, Russell, Robertson
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7602906

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, under a similar driver's license disciplinary statute, Ala. Code 1975, § 32-5A-195(q), a judicial-review proceeding "is a de novo hearing, i.e., the trial court is empowered to have a hearing, to take testimony, to receive evidence, and to make a finding on its o…
- holding that, under a similar driver's license disciplinary statute, Ala. Code 1975, § 32-5A-195(q

## Opinion text

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
While the majority opinion quotes Madison for the proposition that this is a civil proceeding, I disagree. The Madison case involved a question of automobile liability insurance and the sixth amendment right to counsel, and this court held that the sixth amendment extends only to criminal or quasi-criminal cases and that Madison was a civil proceeding.
The license suspension in this case is based on a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors in the State of Georgia where Irvine entered a “nolo contendere” plea. It is my opinion that this proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, and, as such, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the Director to call Irvine as an adverse witness. If it was error, after a review of the record, I would find it to be harmless error in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7602906. Public record. Not legal advice.