Circuit Court appeals from the DLAD / DAAD after losing a Michigan driver's
license restoration hearing
An appeal to circuit court is no substitution for hiring a license restoration
attorney!
If you lose your hearing before the Michigan drivers license appeal board, you
may appeal that decision to the circuit court. This is highly deceptive,
however, and our firm receives numerous calls every day from people who have
lost their driver's license restoration case. An appeal to the Circuit Court is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and this is a very high standard to prove
on appeal. The bad news that we give potential clients every day after losing a
driver's license reinstatement case is that the information provided by the
motorist was deficient and the hearing officer did not abuse his or her
discretion in denying the application to restore the license.
You should have contacted our firm in the first place!
Do not rely upon advice from other people in this type of a case. To the extent
that there are prevailing myths regarding driver's license restoration matters,
the myth that an appeal can be easily won is absolutely contrary to the truth.
Maybe next year...
If you are going to make an honest attempt to restore your Michigan driving
privileges, you should focus your efforts on winning before the DLAD. This
takes time, effort, and dedication, and you need qualified Michigan driver's
license restoration lawyers to help you accomplish these goals.
But do you do appeals?
Yes, but these are rare and costly. For example, a number of Hearing Officers
were denying applications for restoration against graduates of various Sobriety
Court programs based upon “the Reynolds doctrine.” The Reynolds doctrine
holds that a person who satisfies the technical requirements of the DLAD / DAAD
rules cannot obtain a drivers license if that person has been in prison for a
drunk driving accident with no term of sobriety outside prison. This makes
sense, right? But the Secretary of State Hearing Officers decided that a key
phrase of that decision “controlled environment” could be extended to
probation, Sobriety Court, and to people who felt that they would continue to
participate in AA even after their license was restored. That’s just stupid.
Stupid decisions like this constitute an abuse of discretion, and the
Secretary of State has lost numerous appeals based upon their attempt to
massively expand the Reynolds doctrine beyond the scope of the original
decision.
