Gonzales v. State

Bruce W. Gonzales, Appellant, v. State of Kansas, Department of Revenue, Appellee

Gonzales v. State, 713 P.2d 489 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986)

Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 30, 1986
Docket: No. 57,674
Judges: Parks, P.J., Rees, J., and Stephen D. Hill, District Judge, Assigned
Citations: 713 P.2d 48911 Kan. App. 2d 701986 Kan. App. LEXIS 884

Cited by 8 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Rees

Rees, J.;

Upon appeal from a Division of Vehicles driver’s license suspension order, the Shawnee County District Court affirmed the Division’s 120-day suspension of plaintiff Bruce W. Gonzales’ driver’s license for unreasonable refusal, on October 7, 1983, to submit to a chemical breath test. Gonzales appeals from the district court judgment.

At the threshold, the record reveals that upon Gonzales’ application the suspension of his driver’s license ordered by the Division was stayed pending the de novo hearing on appeal to the district court for which he petitioned. However, the record also reveals that the suspension affirmed by the district court was not stayed pending this appeal to us; that Gonzales lodged no motion for a stay of the suspension order following the district court adjudication; and that the 120-day suspension period has run. Thus, there is raised the question whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot.

Mootness is a rule of policy under which a court will not render opinions in matters where judgment could have no practical effect on a then existing controversy.

State, ex rel., v. Engler, 181 Kan. 1040, 1042 , 317 P.2d 432 (1957). The rule *71 operates even in cases involving questions of great public interest.

Dickey Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 153 Kan. 489 , 111 P.2d 1113 (1941). However, since mootness does not affect the court’s jurisdiction, the court will proceed to judgment whenever dismissal of an appeal adversely affects rights vital to the parties, even where its judgment will not be enforceable because of lapse of time or other changed circumstances.

State, ex rel., v. Engler, 181 Kan. at 1042 . See, e.g., Moore v. Smith, 160 Kan. 167, 160 P.2d 675 (1945). See also City of Roeland Park v. Cross, 229 Kan. 269 , 623 P.2d 1332 (1981).

Gonzales argues this appeal should not be dismissed because there now is of record the suspension of his driver’s license for unreasonable refusal to submit to a chemical breath test. We do not find that fact in and of itself prevents dismissal. Gonzales has not shown us, nor are we aware, of any situations in which a driver’s license suspension — unlike a DUI conviction or license revocation — on a driver’s record enhances or otherwise affects later rights, penalties, convictions or proceedings. We see no rights vital to the driver or any other interested party that may be adversely affected by dismissal.

Cf. State v. Jones, 220 Kan. 136, 137 , 551 P.2d 801 (1976). Accordingly, we hold this appeal is moot and should be dismissed. See Graves v. State Board of Pharmacy, 188 Kan. 194 , 362 P.2d 66 (1961).

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(dismissing an appeal from a driver's license suspension as moot because the period of suspension had expired and "no rights vital to driver or any other interested party" would be adversely affected)

S.N. v. Ehling, No. 114412 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2016)

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

Salina Airport Authority v. Board of Tax Appeals761 P.2d 1261 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988)
State v. Dumars154 P.3d 1120 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007)
City of Ottawa v. Lester822 P.2d 72 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991)
State v. Zirkle814 P.2d 452 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991)
Skillett v. Sierra53 P.3d 1234 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002)
Phillips v. Schwendiman802 P.2d 108 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

S.N. v. EhlingNo. 114412 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2016)
McBride v. PfannenstielNo. 113691 (Kan. Ct. App. May 6, 2016)
State v. Dumars154 P.3d 1120 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007)
Skillett v. Sierra53 P.3d 1234 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002)
City of Ottawa v. Lester822 P.2d 72 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991)
State v. Zirkle814 P.2d 452 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State ex rel. Anderson v. Engler, 317 P.2d 432 (Kan. 1957)	10
	State v. Jones, 551 P.2d 801 (Kan. 1976)	42
	Moore v. Smith, 160 P.2d 675 (Kan. 1945)	28
	Dickey Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 111 P.2d 1113 (Kan. 1941)	21
	City of Roeland Park v. Cross, 623 P.2d 1332 (Kan. 1981)	14
	Graves v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 362 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1961)	4

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list