Jones v. Department of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. Department of Revenue

880 S.W.2d 626, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1242, 1994 WL 389152

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 28, 1994

DocketNo. 19262

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 880 S.W.2d 626 (Jones v. Department 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

Jones v. Department of Revenue, 880 S.W.2d 626, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1242, 1994 WL 389152 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

The Missouri Director of Revenue appeals an order dated November 24, 1993, setting [627]*627aside the revocation of the automobile driving privileges of plaintiff and ordering “the Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Missouri to deliver Plaintiffs driver’s license to him.”¹

In his point relied on, the Director of Revenue correctly asserts that he is a necessary party to a proceeding under § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1992 (since amended, see RSMo Supp.1993). Failure to make him a party deprives the trial court of jurisdiction. See Williams v. Director of Revenue, 873 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Mo.App.1994). Appellant was not initially named a party nor later added by court order, necessary requirements for him to be a party. Id.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the trial court set aside its order and judgment and enter judgment dismissing plaintiffs petition.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

The Missouri Director of Revenue appeals an order dated November 24, 1993, setting [627]*627aside the revocation of the automobile driving privileges of plaintiff and ordering “the Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Missouri to deliver Plaintiffs driver’s license to him.”¹

In his point relied on, the Director of Revenue correctly asserts that he is a necessary party to a proceeding under § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1992 (since amended, see RSMo Supp.1993). Failure to make him a party deprives the trial court of jurisdiction. See Williams v. Director of Revenue, 873 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Mo.App.1994). Appellant was not initially named a party nor later added by court order, necessary requirements for him to be a party. Id.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the trial court set aside its order and judgment and enter judgment dismissing plaintiffs petition.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 S.W.2d 626, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1242, 1994 WL 389152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-department-of-revenue-moctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack