State v. Scheffel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• upholding driver’s license suspension statute against right to travel challenge because “[t]here is no constitutional right to a particular mode of travel”
• Washington Habitual Traffic Offenders Act was not ex post facto because it applied to petitioners only if they committed a third crime after the law went into effect
• Washington Habitual Traffic Offenders Act, chapter 46.65 RCW, was not ex post facto because it applied to petitioners only if they committed a third crime after the law went into effect
• one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel
• RCW 46.65 applies to all habitual traffic offenders
• habitual traffic offenders under RCW 46.65.020

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).