Snead v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snead v. Director of Revenue

926 S.W.2d 562, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1363, 1996 WL 439246

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 6, 1996

DocketNo. 68904

StatusPublished

This text of 926 S.W.2d 562 (Snead 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

Snead v. Director of Revenue, 926 S.W.2d 562, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1363, 1996 WL 439246 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after she was arrested for driving while intoxicated, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and she requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the case and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of [563]*563Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after she was arrested for driving while intoxicated, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and she requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the case and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by an Associate Circuit Judge.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of [563]*563Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

926 S.W.2d 562, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1363, 1996 WL 439246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snead-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack