Jaegers v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jaegers v. Director of Revenue

179 S.W.3d 478, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1870

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85829

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.W.3d 478 (Jaegers 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

Jaegers v. Director of Revenue, 179 S.W.3d 478, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Missouri Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating Rodney Jaegers’s (Driver) driving privileges and setting aside the Director’s revocation of Driver’s driving privileges for one year following his refusal to submit to a breath test after being arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The Director contends the trial court erred in setting aside the Director’s revocation and reinstating Driver’s driving privileges because Driver refused to submit to a breath test and the Director met her burden under Section 577.041, RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Missouri Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating Rodney Jaegers’s (Driver) driving privileges and setting aside the Director’s revocation of Driver’s driving privileges for one year following his refusal to submit to a breath test after being arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The Director contends the trial court erred in setting aside the Director’s revocation and reinstating Driver’s driving privileges because Driver refused to submit to a breath test and the Director met her burden under Section 577.041, RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 478, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaegers-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack