Roland v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roland v. Director of Revenue

482 S.W.3d 881, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 1085651

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103137

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 881 (Roland 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

Roland v. Director of Revenue, 482 S.W.3d 881, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 1085651 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

. . ORDER

PER CURIAM'

David E, Roland (Driver) appeals from the trial court’s judgment upholding the decision of the Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri to deny Driver’s application for a new Missouri license, pursuant to Section 544.046 RSMo 2000.¹ We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal ■ and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case "would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision, 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'

David E, Roland (Driver) appeals from the trial court’s judgment upholding the decision of the Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri to deny Driver’s application for a new Missouri license, pursuant to Section 544.046 RSMo 2000.¹ We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal ■ and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case "would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision, We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 881, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 1085651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2016.