Yates v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Yates v. Director of Revenue

502 S.W.3d 720, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2016 WL 6208394

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketWD 79022

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 720 (Yates 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

Yates v. Director of Revenue, 502 S.W.3d 720, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2016 WL 6208394 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Philip T. Yates appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, sustaining the Director of Revenue’s one-year revocation of Yates’s driver’s license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Yates al[721]*721leges that the trial court erred in upholding the revocation of his driver’s license because its finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Yates was driving while intoxicated was against the weight of the evidence. Because the weight of the evidence supports that the officer had reasonable grounds, ie., probable cause, to believe that Yates was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a legal memorandum explaining our ruling.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Philip T. Yates appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, sustaining the Director of Revenue’s one-year revocation of Yates’s driver’s license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Yates al[721]*721leges that the trial court erred in upholding the revocation of his driver’s license because its finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Yates was driving while intoxicated was against the weight of the evidence. Because the weight of the evidence supports that the officer had reasonable grounds, ie., probable cause, to believe that Yates was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a legal memorandum explaining our ruling.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 720, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2016 WL 6208394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2016.