Jones v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. Director of Revenue

14 S.W.3d 663, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 407, 2000 WL 291009

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76385

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.W.3d 663 (Jones 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

Jones v. Director of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 663, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 407, 2000 WL 291009 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. Jones (Jones) appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment denying his motion to set aside revocation of his driver’s license pursuant to Section 577.041, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998. Jones contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside revocation because [664]*664the Director of Revenue (Director) failed to submit sufficient evidence that there was reasonable grounds to believe Jones was intoxicated at the time he drove the motor vehicle. Jones argues there was no evidence presented as to the time of the accident to establish that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest Jones for driving while intoxicated.

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.

Kenneth L. Jones (Jones) appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment denying his motion to set aside revocation of his driver’s license pursuant to Section 577.041, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998. Jones contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside revocation because [664]*664the Director of Revenue (Director) failed to submit sufficient evidence that there was reasonable grounds to believe Jones was intoxicated at the time he drove the motor vehicle. Jones argues there was no evidence presented as to the time of the accident to establish that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest Jones for driving while intoxicated.

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)

14 S.W.3d 663, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 407, 2000 WL 291009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2000.