Pearson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pearson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

306 S.W.3d 653, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 2010 WL 528069

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 2010·No. ED 93037·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating the driving privileges of petitioner, Anthony C. Pearson, after the Director suspended them pursuant to section 302.505 RSMo (2000). 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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memoran *654 dum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm 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.

The Director of Revenue appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating the driving privileges of petitioner, Anthony C. Pearson, after the Director suspended them pursuant to section 302.505 RSMo (2000). 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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memoran *654 dum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Pearson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE, 306 S.W.3d 653, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 2010 WL 528069 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

306 S.W.3d 653 (Pearson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related