Salamone v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Salamone v. Director of Revenue

332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2011 WL 794775

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

DocketED 94636

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 S.W.3d 931 (Salamone 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

Salamone v. Director of Revenue, 332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2011 WL 794775 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darren J. Salamone (hereinafter, “Driver”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment affirming the suspension of his driving privileges by the Director of Revenue (hereinafter, “the Director”). Driver argues there was no competent, credible evidence presented at trial demonstrating he was driving a motor vehicle for use on a Missouri highway.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use 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.

Darren J. Salamone (hereinafter, “Driver”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment affirming the suspension of his driving privileges by the Director of Revenue (hereinafter, “the Director”). Driver argues there was no competent, credible evidence presented at trial demonstrating he was driving a motor vehicle for use on a Missouri highway.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2011 WL 794775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salamone-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack