Peebles v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peebles v. Director of Revenue

301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 5341682

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

DocketED 92494

StatusPublished

This text of 301 S.W.3d 555 (Peebles 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

Peebles v. Director of Revenue, 301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 5341682 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Lorenzo Peebles, appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County sustaining the Director of Revenue’s revocation of the appellant’s driving privileges for failing to submit to a chemical test to determine his blood aleo- *556 hoi content under the Missouri Implied Consent Law. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He also contends the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, and the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

The appellant, Lorenzo Peebles, appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County sustaining the Director of Revenue’s revocation of the appellant’s driving privileges for failing to submit to a chemical test to determine his blood aleo- *556 hoi content under the Missouri Implied Consent Law. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He also contends the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, and the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1791, 2009 WL 5341682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peebles-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack