Hager v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hager v. Director of Revenue

893 S.W.2d 907, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 474, 1995 WL 101354

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1995

DocketNo. 19655

StatusPublished

This text of 893 S.W.2d 907 (Hager 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

Hager v. Director of Revenue, 893 S.W.2d 907, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 474, 1995 WL 101354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

FLANIGAN, Judge.

The Director of Revenue entered an order, effective April 15, 1994, suspending the driver’s license of Carl Hager. Pursuant to § 302.311 RSMo 1994, V.A.M.S., Hager filed a timely appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence. On May 12, 1994, after a hearing at which evidence was received, the trial court entered a judgment reversing the Director’s order of suspension. The Director appeals.

In connection with this appeal, the Director requested a transcript of the evidence, but no transcript had been made. The record on appeal, through no fault of the Director, does not contain a transcript of the evidence. This omission requires reversal and remand. Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 342[4] (Mo. banc 1992) (appeal in “the seventh case”); Hertel v. Director of Revenue, 887 S.W.2d 775 (Mo.App.1994); Vogel v. Director of Revenue, 804 S.W.2d 432, 434-435[2] (Mo.App.1991).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SHRUM, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.

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

FLANIGAN, Judge.

The Director of Revenue entered an order, effective April 15, 1994, suspending the driver’s license of Carl Hager. Pursuant to § 302.311 RSMo 1994, V.A.M.S., Hager filed a timely appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence. On May 12, 1994, after a hearing at which evidence was received, the trial court entered a judgment reversing the Director’s order of suspension. The Director appeals.

In connection with this appeal, the Director requested a transcript of the evidence, but no transcript had been made. The record on appeal, through no fault of the Director, does not contain a transcript of the evidence. This omission requires reversal and remand. Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 342[4] (Mo. banc 1992) (appeal in “the seventh case”); Hertel v. Director of Revenue, 887 S.W.2d 775 (Mo.App.1994); Vogel v. Director of Revenue, 804 S.W.2d 432, 434-435[2] (Mo.App.1991).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SHRUM, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

893 S.W.2d 907, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 474, 1995 WL 101354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hager-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack