McGowan v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

McGowan v. Director of Revenue

982 S.W.2d 719, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2098

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

DocketNo. 73719

StatusPublished

This text of 982 S.W.2d 719 (McGowan 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

McGowan v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 719, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2098 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Driver appeals from the judgment of the trial court that upheld the suspension/revocation of his driving privileges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment in that the certificate of analysis admitted into evidence was inadmissible hearsay. This court has considered and denied the same argument in Vilcek v. Director of Revenue, 974 S.W.2d 602 (Mo.App.1998). The maintenance report is considered valid under the language of 19 CSR 25-30.051(4). Id. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Driver appeals from the judgment of the trial court that upheld the suspension/revocation of his driving privileges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment in that the certificate of analysis admitted into evidence was inadmissible hearsay. This court has considered and denied the same argument in Vilcek v. Director of Revenue, 974 S.W.2d 602 (Mo.App.1998). The maintenance report is considered valid under the language of 19 CSR 25-30.051(4). Id. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

982 S.W.2d 719, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack