Svidenko v. DMV

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 11-23-2011
  • Case #: A146173
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J. for the Court; Brewer, C.J.; Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a petitioner files a just cause exception to a timely administrative appeal, the reviewing agency must answer the substantive arguments put forth by the petitioner.

Svidenko was arrested for driving under the influence. He was provided a copy of the information regarding the opportunity for a hearing, but it was presented in English – which Svidenko did not speak at the time. Long after the challenge period for administrative appeals lapsed, Svidenko requested that the DMV rescind the suspension or grant him a hearing, arguing that he had just cause for the untimely request, because he did not speak English, and thus he did not understand the police officer or the administrative process. The DMV denied his untimely request, but did not address Svidenko’s substantive arguments. The Court of Appeals concluded that the DMV failed to connect its findings of fact to Svidenko’s substantive argument when it denied his just cause request. Rather, the DMV merely connected the facts to the conclusion that Svidenko hearing was untimely and did not address his just cause argument. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search