PANORA, REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF MASSACHUSETTS

v.

MONTRYM

Citator

Cited By

• Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979)
  …l court’s instruction to the jury, although not in conformity with the legal requirements, had benefited appellant, and hence the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court reinstated the judgment of the trial court. We noted probable jurisdiction. 435 U. S. 967. After oral argument it became clear that no challenge to the constitutionality of any Texas statute was presented. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) no appeal is authorized; accordingly, construing [*423] the papers filed as a petition for a writ of cer…
• Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979)
  …ion upholding the constitutionality of § 2.02. In Nos. 77-1163 and 77-1186, the members of the Board other than Rogers, and the TOA, respectively, appeal from the decision striking down § 5.13 (d) as unconstitutional. We noted probable jurisdiction, 435 U. S. 967, and now affirm the decision in No. 77-1164 and reverse in Nos. 77-1163 and 77-1186. [*8] II In holding that § 5.13 (d) infringes First Amendment rights, the District Court relied primarily on this Court’s decisions in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona…
• MacKey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979)
  …motion to reconsider; the [*10] dissenting judge thought Love controlled. Montrym v. Panora, 438 F. Supp. 1157 (Mass. 1977). We noted probable jurisdiction following the submission of supplemental briefs by the parties. Sub nom. Panora v. Montrym, 435 U. S. 967 (1978). We reverse.6 II The Registrar concedes here that suspension of a driver’s license for statutorily defined cause implicates a protectible property interest;7 accordingly, the only question presented by this appeal is what process is due to…