Heitkamp v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Heitkamp v. Director of Revenue

297 S.W.3d 135, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2009 WL 3753988

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2009

DocketED 92449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 S.W.3d 135 (Heitkamp 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

Heitkamp v. Director of Revenue, 297 S.W.3d 135, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2009 WL 3753988 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating Thomas Martin Heitkamp’s driving privileges after Director revoked them pursuant to.Section 577.041 RSMo 2006. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Guhr v. Director of Revenue, 228 S.W.3d 581, 584 (Mo.2007). 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.

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating Thomas Martin Heitkamp’s driving privileges after Director revoked them pursuant to.Section 577.041 RSMo 2006. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Guhr v. Director of Revenue, 228 S.W.3d 581, 584 (Mo.2007). 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)

297 S.W.3d 135, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2009 WL 3753988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heitkamp-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack