# McGlothlen v. Department of Motor Vehicles

> California Court of Appeal · July 27, 1977 · 71 Cal. App. 3d 1005

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724151

## Case

- **Full name:** RALPH McGLOTHLEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant; CHARLES SIEBE SCALLY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant; OLIVER MEDEIROS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant; CLAYTON JAMES HURT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 27, 1977
- **Citations:** 71 Cal. App. 3d 1005; 140 Cal. Rptr. 168; 71 Cal. App. 2d 1005; 1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1679
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Sims
- **Judges:** Sims
- **Cited by:** 39 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/9724151

## Opinion text

SIMS, Acting P. J.
By petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs assert that this court has overlooked its responsibility to reaffirm the independent nature of the California Constitution and its responsibility to separately define and protect the rights of California citizens under those provisions, despite conflicting decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the federal Constitution. (See People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101, 114-115 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 545 P.2d 272 ]; People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943, 951, fn. 4 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 538 P.2d 753 ]; and People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 548, 552 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 531 P.2d 1099 ].) In the exercise of independent judgment and for the reasons set forth in the opinion we have no reason to apply standards of equal protection other than enumerated in this case. Moreover by any standard the alleged favoritism in 4 counties cannot be translated into an authorized program in 54 other counties.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9724151. Public record. Not legal advice.