McDevitt v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

McDevitt v. Director of Revenue

921 S.W.2d 158, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 793

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1996

DocketNo. 67462

StatusPublished

This text of 921 S.W.2d 158 (McDevitt 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

McDevitt v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 158, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the Director of Revenue’s (Director) suspension of petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended as a result of allegedly driving with a blood-alcohol content by weight of .10% or more, § 302.505.1, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained after an administrative hearing, § 302.505.2, 302.530, and he petitioned for a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner. The commissioner heard the case and found that the suspension should be affirmed. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

This ease is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 139.

We remand.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the Director of Revenue’s (Director) suspension of petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended as a result of allegedly driving with a blood-alcohol content by weight of .10% or more, § 302.505.1, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained after an administrative hearing, § 302.505.2, 302.530, and he petitioned for a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner. The commissioner heard the case and found that the suspension should be affirmed. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

This ease is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 139.

We remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 S.W.2d 158, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdevitt-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack