Wild v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wild v. Director of Revenue

725 S.W.2d 144, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3729

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 3, 1987

DocketNo. 49870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 S.W.2d 144 (Wild 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

Wild v. Director of Revenue, 725 S.W.2d 144, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3729 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

The Director of the Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from an order sanctioning Department for failure to answer respondent’s (licensee’s) interrogatories. As a sanction the court struck Department’s pleadings and ordered the director to reinstate licensee’s license to drive. We reverse and remand.

Licensee was arrested for driving while intoxicated under § 577.010, RSMo 1986. His license was suspended pursuant to § 302.525. An administrative hearing was held, § 302.530, and the suspension was upheld. Licensee requested a trial de novo. § 302.535. In conjunction with that trial, licensee submitted interrogatories to Department that contained, counting sub-parts, over fifty questions. Of those questions Department was unable to answer thirty-four because the information requested was not known or readily available to it. The questions sought information (1) available only to the arresting officer, (2) about the policies of the St. Louis county police department, or (3) of a technical nature which could only be answered by the manufacturer of the equipment or by agencies other than the Department of Revenue.

The facts and issues are similar to those in Arth v. Director of Revenue, 722 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.banc 1987). Department provided licensee with all the documents relevant to licensee that were available to it. Department did all that was required when it provided licensee, by interrogatory answer, all the information concerning licensee or his case as was available in its files. Department can do no more than provide the information that is reasonably available to it.

The order of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

SATZ, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

The Director of the Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from an order sanctioning Department for failure to answer respondent’s (licensee’s) interrogatories. As a sanction the court struck Department’s pleadings and ordered the director to reinstate licensee’s license to drive. We reverse and remand.

Licensee was arrested for driving while intoxicated under § 577.010, RSMo 1986. His license was suspended pursuant to § 302.525. An administrative hearing was held, § 302.530, and the suspension was upheld. Licensee requested a trial de novo. § 302.535. In conjunction with that trial, licensee submitted interrogatories to Department that contained, counting sub-parts, over fifty questions. Of those questions Department was unable to answer thirty-four because the information requested was not known or readily available to it. The questions sought information (1) available only to the arresting officer, (2) about the policies of the St. Louis county police department, or (3) of a technical nature which could only be answered by the manufacturer of the equipment or by agencies other than the Department of Revenue.

The facts and issues are similar to those in Arth v. Director of Revenue, 722 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.banc 1987). Department provided licensee with all the documents relevant to licensee that were available to it. Department did all that was required when it provided licensee, by interrogatory answer, all the information concerning licensee or his case as was available in its files. Department can do no more than provide the information that is reasonably available to it.

The order of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

SATZ, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 S.W.2d 144, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack