Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Corley v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles
Citations: 648 So. 2d 936; 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3612; 1994 WL 735616Docket: No. 93 CA 1776
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 12, 1994; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The trial court's authority to grant a restricted driver’s license during the first thirty days of a ninety-day suspension for failing a breath analysis test under the Implied Consent Law is the central issue. Jeffery G. Corley, the plaintiff-appellee, had his license suspended after a January 16, 1993, arrest for failing a breath test. He petitioned to overturn the Department's suspension decision or to obtain a restricted license. The trial court upheld the suspension but granted him a restricted license for the full ninety-day period. The Department appealed, contending that the trial court erred by granting a hardship license for the initial thirty days of suspension. Relevant statutory provisions—LSA-R.S. 32:668(0) and LSA-R.S. 32:668(B)(1)(c)—indicate that individuals with a blood alcohol level of .10 percent or higher are not eligible for a restricted license during the first thirty days of suspension. Established jurisprudence confirms that a district court cannot order the Department to act against these mandatory suspension provisions. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to grant Corley a restricted license during the first thirty days of his suspension, affirming the suspension itself. The costs of the appeal were assessed against the plaintiff-appellee. The court noted its disagreement with the 5th Circuit’s ruling in Noustens v. State, opting not to follow it. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.