McGee v. Director of Revenue

767 S.W.2d 630, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 484, 1989 WL 34558
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 11, 1989
DocketNo. 55402
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 767 S.W.2d 630 (McGee 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
McGee v. Director of Revenue, 767 S.W.2d 630, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 484, 1989 WL 34558 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Appellant (director) appeals from a judgment of the circuit court granting a petition for review by respondent (driver) and setting aside the revocation of her driving privileges. We reverse.

On April 14, 1988, director mailed a Notice of Loss of Driving Privileges to driver informing driver her privilege to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Missouri would be revoked for a period of one year beginning May 28, 1988, for failing to take a chemical test. Sections 577.020 and 577.-041, RSMo 1986. The notice further informed driver she could appeal the decision in the Circuit Court or Associate Circuit Court in the county where she resides or the county where the arrest occurred. The notice specified no time limit for this appeal.

On July 28, 1988, over ninety days after the mailing of the notice to driver, she filed a petition for review of the revocation. On August 1, 1988, the St. Charles County prosecutor filed a memorandum confessing driver’s petition for review, and on August 2, 1988, an order was entered instructing director to restore driver’s driving privileges.

Director appeals this decision, asserting the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because driver failed to file her petition for review within the thirty-day time limit specified in §§ 302.311 and 536.-110, RSMo 1986. There is no dispute that driver’s petition was filed more than thirty days after she received notice of the revocation. Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1988), a recent case based upon similar facts, mandates reversal for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

Related

Murray v. Wagner
883 S.W.2d 98 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Flaker v. Director of Revenue
877 S.W.2d 189 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Jaycox v. Director of Revenue
875 S.W.2d 605 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Romans v. Director of Revenue
783 S.W.2d 894 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1990)
Reid v. Director of Revenue
772 S.W.2d 28 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Feldmann v. McNeill
772 S.W.2d 409 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Keegan v. Director, Missouri Department of Revenue
769 S.W.2d 197 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
767 S.W.2d 630, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 484, 1989 WL 34558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1989.