Hopper v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hopper v. Director of Revenue

859 S.W.2d 246, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1264, 1993 WL 309118

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 17, 1993

DocketNo. WD 47502

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 859 S.W.2d 246 (Hopper 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

Hopper v. Director of Revenue, 859 S.W.2d 246, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1264, 1993 WL 309118 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Director of Revenue’s appeal from an order granting hardship driving privi[247]*247leges to Thomas C. Hopper is dismissed as moot.

In January 1993, when the trial court ordered the hardship privileges, Mr. Hopper was under revocation for alcohol related enforcement contacts. Mr. Hopper’s revocation followed an alcohol related driving arrest in April 1992. Before July 1, 1992, he received notice of revocation, an administrative hearing, and final notice of the effective date of revocation. The yearlong revocation began July 14, 1992, and ended July 14, 1993.

Revisions to the statute governing hardship, driving privileges, § 302.309, RSMo Supp.1992, became effective July 1, 1992. Although Mr. Hopper was eligible for hardship driving privileges under the former statute, he was ineligible under the amended version. Amended § 302.309.-3(5)(i) makes a driver ineligible for hardship privileges if his driver’s license has been revoked for alcohol related enforcement contacts under § 302.525.2, and if he has not completed that revocation. Taylor v. Director of Revenue, 861 S.W.2d 134, - (Mo.App., E.D., 1993). Further, amended § 302.309.3(5)(i) applies retrospectively to bar hardship privileges to drivers whose revocations stemmed from arrests made before July 1, 1992. Id., at -; Paris v. Director of Revenue, 858 S.W.2d 829, 830-831 (Mo.App.E.D., 1993); Brennecka v. Director of Revenue, 855 S.W.2d 509, 511 (Mo.App., W.D., 1993).

Mr. Hopper was not entitled to hardship driving privileges because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant them to a statutorily ineligible driver. Barnes v. Director of Revenue, 856 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App., W.D., 1993). Although reversal of the order is appropriate, this court dismisses the appeal as moot. The order granting the hardship privileges expired July 14, 1993, the same date Mr. Hopper’s revocation ended. Because of that expiration, this appeal no longer presents an existing controversy, and will be dismissed. Pollard v. David, 421 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Mo.1967).

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

PER CURIAM:

The Director of Revenue’s appeal from an order granting hardship driving privi[247]*247leges to Thomas C. Hopper is dismissed as moot.

In January 1993, when the trial court ordered the hardship privileges, Mr. Hopper was under revocation for alcohol related enforcement contacts. Mr. Hopper’s revocation followed an alcohol related driving arrest in April 1992. Before July 1, 1992, he received notice of revocation, an administrative hearing, and final notice of the effective date of revocation. The yearlong revocation began July 14, 1992, and ended July 14, 1993.

Revisions to the statute governing hardship, driving privileges, § 302.309, RSMo Supp.1992, became effective July 1, 1992. Although Mr. Hopper was eligible for hardship driving privileges under the former statute, he was ineligible under the amended version. Amended § 302.309.-3(5)(i) makes a driver ineligible for hardship privileges if his driver’s license has been revoked for alcohol related enforcement contacts under § 302.525.2, and if he has not completed that revocation. Taylor v. Director of Revenue, 861 S.W.2d 134, - (Mo.App., E.D., 1993). Further, amended § 302.309.3(5)(i) applies retrospectively to bar hardship privileges to drivers whose revocations stemmed from arrests made before July 1, 1992. Id., at -; Paris v. Director of Revenue, 858 S.W.2d 829, 830-831 (Mo.App.E.D., 1993); Brennecka v. Director of Revenue, 855 S.W.2d 509, 511 (Mo.App., W.D., 1993).

Mr. Hopper was not entitled to hardship driving privileges because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant them to a statutorily ineligible driver. Barnes v. Director of Revenue, 856 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App., W.D., 1993). Although reversal of the order is appropriate, this court dismisses the appeal as moot. The order granting the hardship privileges expired July 14, 1993, the same date Mr. Hopper’s revocation ended. Because of that expiration, this appeal no longer presents an existing controversy, and will be dismissed. Pollard v. David, 421 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Mo.1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

859 S.W.2d 246, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1264, 1993 WL 309118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopper-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack