Rosenblum v. Griffin

66 Citing cases

  1. Orr v. Superior Court (Peter Alvarado)

    73 Cal. Rptr. 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)

    In Escobedo the court answered this contention as follows: "Financial responsibility laws such as this do not unconstitutionally discriminate against the poor. (See Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles (1931), 212 Cal. 279, 284, 298 P. 481; Rosenblum v. Griffin (1938), 89 N.H. 314, 319, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367.) Those damaged by the negligence of indigent drivers may be indigent also, and as little able as the drivers to bear the cost of such negligence.

  2. State v. Stehlek

    262 Wis. 642 (Wis. 1953)   Cited 39 times
    In Stehlek, the Wisconsin Supreme Court cited and quoted from Escobedo v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1: "`Suspension of the license without prior hearing but subject to subsequent judicial review did not violate due process if reasonably justified by a compelling public interest.'"

    Sullins v. Butler, 175 Tenn. 468, 471, 135 S.W.2d 930, citing 5 Am. Jur., Automobiles, p. 593, sec. 157; 42 C. J., Motor Vehicles, pp. 740, 746, secs. 210-229; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 Sup. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385. In a leading case involving the financial responsibility law of New Hampshire, Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367, the court stated (p. 318) "`. . . the operation of an automobile upon the public highways is not a right but only a privilege which the state may grant or withhold at pleasure.

  3. State v. Finley

    198 Kan. 585 (Kan. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    The Wisconsin court reasoned that by the weight of authority driving an automobile upon public highways is a privilege, and not a property right; and is subject to reasonable regulation under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. It quoted from a leading case involving the financial responsibility law ( Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367) as follows: "`". . . the operation of an automobile upon the public highways is not a right but only a privilege which the state may grant or withhold at pleasure.

  4. Adams v. City of Pocatello

    91 Idaho 99 (Idaho 1966)   Cited 16 times
    Suspending a driver's license for failure to deposit security for payment of judgment

    "It is well recognized that the social objective of preventing financial hardship and possible reliance upon the welfare agencies of the state is a permissible goal of police power action. Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 34 Ariz. 201, 269 P. 501 (1928); Berberian v. Lussier [ 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d 869 (1958)]; Hadden v. Aitken, [ 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003 (1952)]; Rosenblum v. Griffin, [ 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367 (1938)]." Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136, 141 (1963).

  5. Progressive Ins. v. Enterprise, Boston

    149 N.H. 489 (N.H. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Characterizing the decision as “interpret[ing] conflicting provisions in the parties' insurance policies”

    Here, the only insurance contract is that between the drivers and Progressive. This is not a case of conflict between general excess coverage clauses. According to Progressive, this court's holding in Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314 (1938), mandates that "if and when Enterprise automobiles are involved in automobile accidents causing damages, Enterprise, since it has chosen . . . to carry no liability insurance, must forfeit its right to register its rental fleet and it must forfeit its motor vehicle plates, unless and until it agrees to pay the damages caused by the use of its automobiles upon the New Hampshire roadways — the damages which Enterprise has failed and refused to pay in these two cases." This statement, however, is based on a misreading of both Rosenblum and the Financial Responsibility Act.

  6. Hadden v. Aitken

    156 Neb. 215 (Neb. 1952)   Cited 28 times
    In Hadden v. Aitken (1952), 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003 (decided on other grounds) a motion to dismiss was filed because the appeal from an administrative agency had not been filed in time.

    (Opinion of the Justices, In re (1925), 81 N.H. 566 [ 129 A. 117, 39 A. L. R. 1023]; Opinion of the Justices, In re (1925), 251 Mass. 569 [147 N.E. 681]; Brest v. Commissioner of Insurance (1930), 270 Mass. 7 [ 169 N.E. 657]; Ex parte Poresky (1933), 290 U.S. 30 [54 S. Ct. 3, 78 L. Ed. 152].) Instead, the state chose to allow financially irresponsible licensed operators to drive until they became involved in an accident with the consequences described in sections 419 and 420 of the Vehicle Code and their financial irresponsibility was thus brought to the attention of the department, and then to require suspension of their licenses." See, also, Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 46 N.W.2d 52; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A. L. R. 1367. In his petition appellee claims the suspension order deprives him of his property without due process of law and therefore is in violation of his rights as set forth in Article I, section 3, of the Constitution of Nebraska, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

  7. Baker v. State

    170 Vt. 194 (Vt. 1999)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that the Vermont Constitution’s common-benefits clause requires state to provide "the same benefits and protections" to same-sex couples as to "married opposite-sex couples"

    Although New Hampshire courts have not developed an independent Common Benefits jurisprudence, several early New Hampshire decisions noted the provision's significance. See State v. Pennoyer, 18 A.2d 878, 881 (1889) (relying on Common Benefits Clause to strike down physician-licensing statute that exempted physicians who had resided in one place for four years); Rosenblum v. Griffin, 197 A. 701, 706 (1938) (noting that under Common Benefits Clause, "[e]quality of benefit is no less required than equality of burden. Otherwise equal protection is denied").

  8. Gazzola v. Clements

    120 N.H. 25 (N.H. 1980)   Cited 22 times
    Distinguishing right to condemnation hearing on basis of purpose of taking violates equal protection clause

    The State must grant privileges, as well as impose restrictions, with an even hand. State v. Amyot supra; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701 (1938). "Equality of benefit is no less required than equality of burden."

  9. State v. Amyot

    119 N.H. 671 (N.H. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    The equal protection guarantee extends to the State's granting of privileges as well as to its imposing of restrictions. Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701 (1938). "Equality of benefit is no less required than equality of burden."

  10. Opinion of the Justices

    358 A.2d 667 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 8 times

    As such it granted a privilege such as the State may grant or withhold at pleasure. State v. Sterrin, 78 N.H. 220, 222, [ 98 A. 482, 483 (1916)]; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 318, [ 197 A. 701, 704 (1938)]. The statute deals with a private enterprise which, of its nature, is not only privileged, but which presents a social problem properly coming under the exercise and jurisdiction of the police power of the State and which requires strict regulation and supervision.