Garrett v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Garrett v. Director of Revenue

507 S.W.3d 615, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1195, 2016 WL 6872081

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103989

StatusPublished

This text of 507 S.W.3d 615 (Garrett 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

Garrett v. Director of Revenue, 507 S.W.3d 615, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1195, 2016 WL 6872081 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Chalanda Garrett appeals from the circuit court’s judgment upholding the administrative revocation of her driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath under Missouri’s Implied Consent Law. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the circuit court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Chalanda Garrett appeals from the circuit court’s judgment upholding the administrative revocation of her driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath under Missouri’s Implied Consent Law. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the circuit court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 S.W.3d 615, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1195, 2016 WL 6872081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack