Manner v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Manner v. Director of Revenue

762 S.W.2d 881, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 58, 1989 WL 2598

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 1989

DocketNo. 55164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 S.W.2d 881 (Manner 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

Manner v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 881, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 58, 1989 WL 2598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Petitioner filed an ex parte application for limited driving privileges pursuant to § 302.309.3, RSMo 1986. The circuit court approved the application; the Director of Revenue (Director) appeals.

Because Director was not a party in the court below, he has no right to appeal the court’s order, and we are without jurisdiction. Proctor v. Director of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1988).

In Robinson v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 872, 874 (Mo.App.1989), we said, “it would seem that Director should also be a party to actions in which the driver is seeking hardship driving privileges. It is axiomatic that there should be some representation by the State in a proceeding related to the granting of a hardship license to ensure statutory compliance.” However, § 302.309.3 provides for an ex parte proceeding, and does not provide for notice to the director. We are constrained under this section to dismiss the appeal, and we note that if the procedures governing hardship driving privileges are to be changed, it is a matter to be determined by the legislature.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Petitioner filed an ex parte application for limited driving privileges pursuant to § 302.309.3, RSMo 1986. The circuit court approved the application; the Director of Revenue (Director) appeals.

Because Director was not a party in the court below, he has no right to appeal the court’s order, and we are without jurisdiction. Proctor v. Director of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1988).

In Robinson v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 872, 874 (Mo.App.1989), we said, “it would seem that Director should also be a party to actions in which the driver is seeking hardship driving privileges. It is axiomatic that there should be some representation by the State in a proceeding related to the granting of a hardship license to ensure statutory compliance.” However, § 302.309.3 provides for an ex parte proceeding, and does not provide for notice to the director. We are constrained under this section to dismiss the appeal, and we note that if the procedures governing hardship driving privileges are to be changed, it is a matter to be determined by the legislature.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 S.W.2d 881, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 58, 1989 WL 2598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manner-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack