Garland v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Garland v. Director of Revenue

516 S.W.3d 846, 2017 WL 672161, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 78

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketWD 79528

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.3d 846 (Garland 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

Garland v. Director of Revenue, 516 S.W.3d 846, 2017 WL 672161, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Michael'Garland (“Garland”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County sustaining the Director of Revenue’s (“Director”) one-year revocation of [847]*847his driver’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041.¹ On appeal, Garland alleges that the trial court erred in finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition and in finding that Garland’s actions subjected him to Missouri’s implied consent law requiring submission to a chemical breath test. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Michael'Garland (“Garland”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County sustaining the Director of Revenue’s (“Director”) one-year revocation of [847]*847his driver’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041.¹ On appeal, Garland alleges that the trial court erred in finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition and in finding that Garland’s actions subjected him to Missouri’s implied consent law requiring submission to a chemical breath test. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.3d 846, 2017 WL 672161, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2017.