Pittman v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pittman v. Director of Revenue

456 S.W.3d 545, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 2015 WL 1120121

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 2015

DocketNo. ED 100881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 S.W.3d 545 (Pittman 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

Pittman v. Director of Revenue, 456 S.W.3d 545, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 2015 WL 1120121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacqueline T. Pittman appeals from the trial court’s judgment upholding the administrative revocation of her driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath under Missouri’s Implied Consent Law, Section 577.020 RSMo 2006. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided [546]*546a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacqueline T. Pittman appeals from the trial court’s judgment upholding the administrative revocation of her driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath under Missouri’s Implied Consent Law, Section 577.020 RSMo 2006. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided [546]*546a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 S.W.3d 545, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 254, 2015 WL 1120121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack