Atkins v. Director of Revenue

6 S.W.3d 428, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2188, 1999 WL 1009506
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 9, 1999
DocketNo. ED 75844
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 6 S.W.3d 428 (Atkins 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
Atkins v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 428, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2188, 1999 WL 1009506 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

JAMES R. DOWD, Judge.

The Director of Revenue (“Director”) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City. This judgment reinstated Mr. Atkins’s driver’s license and assessed costs against the Director.

“Absent a statute to the contrary, costs are not recoverable from the state in its own courts.” Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App.1992). Section 536.087.1 RSMO 1994 provides for recovering costs against the state; however, driver’s license proceedings are excluded from this statute by Section 536.085.1 RSMo 1994. Furthermore, Mr. Atkins conceded this issue at oral argument. Point granted.

The Director also contends that the trial court erred in finding that Officer Williams did not have reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Atkins. We disagree.

In reviewing a court-tried case, we must sustain the judgment below unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, [429]*429or it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). We must accept all evidence and inferences supporting the judgment and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Gibson v. Adams, 946 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).

There is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is not against the weight of the evidence. It does not erroneously apply the law. Point denied.

Pursuant to Rule 84.14, we affirm the judgment but amend it to delete the costs assessed to the Director.

GARY M. GAERTNER, J., concurs. PAUL J. SIMON, J., concurs.

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

Related

Vandewiele v. Director of Revenue
292 S.W.3d 397 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
United States v. Ford
509 F.3d 714 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Arnette v. Director of Revenue
145 S.W.3d 851 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2004)
Hobbs v. Director of Revenue
109 S.W.3d 220 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Boulware v. Director of Revenue
105 S.W.3d 542 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Pavlica v. Director of Revenue
71 S.W.3d 186 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 S.W.3d 428, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2188, 1999 WL 1009506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1999.