Adlon v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adlon v. Director of Revenue

925 S.W.2d 502, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1261, 1996 WL 397278

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 16, 1996

DocketNo. 69012

StatusPublished

This text of 925 S.W.2d 502 (Adlon v. Director of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adlon v. Director of Revenue, 925 S.W.2d 502, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1261, 1996 WL 397278 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after he was arrested for driving with a blood-alcohol content by weight of .10% or more, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and he requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the ease and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). See also State ex. rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138.

Petitioner concedes that the commissioner “had no jurisdiction to hear the evidence in the court below.” However, he asserts that remanding the case would violate his “constitutional right to due process and equal protection” and asks us to dismiss the appeal. This argument is wholly without merit and requires no discussion.

Because Director’s first point is disposi-tive, we do not address the remaining point on appeal.

Remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after he was arrested for driving with a blood-alcohol content by weight of .10% or more, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and he requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the ease and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). See also State ex. rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138.

Petitioner concedes that the commissioner “had no jurisdiction to hear the evidence in the court below.” However, he asserts that remanding the case would violate his “constitutional right to due process and equal protection” and asks us to dismiss the appeal. This argument is wholly without merit and requires no discussion.

Because Director’s first point is disposi-tive, we do not address the remaining point on appeal.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 S.W.2d 502, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1261, 1996 WL 397278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adlon-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack