Citation network
Dixon Vs. Love
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1977
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 105 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Dixon v. LoveSearch
-
U.S. 105 (1977) Dixon v. LoveSearch
-
a)(3). A three-judge District Court, relying on Bell v. BursonSearch
-
is constitutionally adequate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as analyzed in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
efficiency, as well as highway safety, which is promoted by the prompt removal of hazardous drivers. Bell v. BursonSearch
-
The court regarded such a prior hearing as mandated by this Court's decision in Bell v. BursonSearch
-
a)(3). The Secretary appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Howlett v. LoveSearch
-
only question is one of timing. This case thus presents an issue similar to that considered only last Term in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
essential as are social insurance payments on which the recipient may depend for his very subsistence. See Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
U.S. at 424 U. S. 343 . See Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
of a suspension or revocation would encourage drivers routinely to request full administrative hearings. See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
important public interest in safety on the roads and highways, and in the prompt removal of a safety hazard. See Perez v. CampbellSearch
-
U. S. 671 (1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). This factor fully distinguishes Bell v. BursonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Since Bell v. BursonSearch
-
revocation of driving privileges, without prior hearing, where earlier convictions were on the record. See, e.g., Cox v. HjelleSearch
-
Stauffer v. WeedlunSearch
-
Horodner v. FisherSearch
-
Wright v. MalloySearch
-
Scott v. HillSearch
-
which appellee does not contest here. Under these circumstances, the requirement of a prior hearing mandated by Bell v. BursonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dixon v. LoveSearch
-
Howlett v. LoveSearch
-
See Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
See Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
See Perez v. CampbellSearch
-
Cox v. HjelleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial