Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …under its police power ... may revoke an operator's license after a conviction for operating an automobile while intoxicated at p. 57 ✓
24 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hagan v. Director of Revenue (mo, 1998-05-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hagan v. Director of Revenue
Mo. · 1998 · confidence medium
“The granting of a hardship driving privilege during the period of revocation is a matter of grace and there is no vested right to receive it.” Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silman v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
The sequence of events that the statutes contemplate for a case like the one before us is illustrated in the factual recitations of Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo. banc 1972), and Breeze v. Goldberg, 595 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Mo.App.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rodney v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brennecka v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 [1, 2] (Mo. banc 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buchheit v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the granting of hardship driving privilege is a matter of grace and “there is no vested right to receive it.” Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 [2] (Mo. banc 1972); See also, True v. Director of Revenue, 773 S.W.2d 241, 242 [1] (Mo.App.1989) (“Hardship driving privileges are granted as a matter of grace and not of right.”); Robinson v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 872, 874-75 [7] (Mo.App.1989) (determination of hardship driving privileges is discretionary with the court, not a matter of right).
cited Cited as authority (rule) True v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Williams v. *875 Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Davis (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo. banc 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Appelbaum v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
But we note the supreme court did not find it to be unreasonable in Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 [2] (Mo. banc 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tuggle v. Director of Revenue
Mo. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo.1972) (en banc); White v. King, 700 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Byerly, 522 S.W.2d 18, 21 (Mo.App.1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) White v. King
Mo. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo. banc 1972).
discussed Cited "see" Jeffrey S. Amick v. Director of Revenue (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972) (a driver’s license “is a privilege or a qualified right that is subject to suspension or revocation as may be provided by law on any ground that would justify a refusal to issue a license in the first instance ….”); Stewart v. Director of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472, 475, n.2 (Mo. banc 1986).
discussed Cited "see" Amick v. Director of Revenue (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1972) (a driver’s license “is a privilege or a qualified right that is subject to suspension or revocation as may be provided by law on any ground that would justify a refusal to issue a license in the first instance....”); Stewart v. Director of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472, 475, n. 2 (Mo. banc 1986).
discussed Cited "see" State ex rel. Danforth v. Lasky
Mo. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. banc 1972). § 302.309 provides, in part, that: “(5) No person is eligible to receive hardship driving privilege whose license has been suspended or revoked for the following reasons; * * * (b) Who at the time he applies for such hardship driving privilege would not be eligible for a chauffeur’s or operator’s license because of the provisions of subdivisions ... (6) ... of section 302.060.” The latter subdivision (No. 6) provides that a license shall not issue: “To any person, either as a chauffeur or as an operator, who, when required by…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald R. WILLIAMS, Respondent,
v.
James E. SCHAFFNER, Director of Revenue, Et Al., Appellants
55437.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Mar 13, 1972.
477 S.W.2d 55
McKenzie, Williams, Merrick, Beamer & Stubbs, Robert J. Mann, Kansas City, for respondent., John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellants.
Stockard.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Plaintiff was twice convicted of operating an automobile while intoxicated in violation of § 564.440 (all statutory citations are to RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.), and pursuant to § 302.304 the Director of Revenue revoked his operator’s license. § 302.309 provides that when an operator’s license is revoked he shall, upon the termination of the revocation, apply for a new license, and § 302.060 provides that a license shall not be issued to any person whose application shows that within five years prior thereto he was convicted for the second time of violating the laws of this state relating to driving while intoxicated. § 302.-309, subd. 3 authorizes certain courts to grant a “hardship driving privilege” to persons whose license has been revoked, but it is also provided in § 302.309, subd. 3(5) (a) that no person is eligible to receive a hardship driving privilege who has been convicted for the second time for operating an automobile while intoxicated in violation of § 564.440.

Plaintiff applied for a hardship driving privilege, and the Circuit Court of Jackson County granted such privilege after ruling that § 302.309(4) (a), obviously intended to be § 302.309, subd. 3(5) (a), was unconstitutional because it constituted “an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious classification and is specifically in contravention of Article I, Section 2, Missouri Constitution of 1945 and the Constitution of the United States, Amendment 14.” The Director of Revenue has appealed. We reverse.

“In the exercise of its police powers, a state may require a person to be licensed as a condition precedent to operating a motor vehicle on public highways, and such license is a privilege or a qualified right that is subject to suspension or revocation as may be provided by law on any ground that would justify a refusal to issue a license in the first instance if such suspension or revocation is not done arbitrarily and in disregard of procedural due process.” Blydenburg v. David, Mo., 413 S.W.2d 284, 289; Barbieri v. Morris, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 711. The revocation of an operator’s license for one year after a conviction for operating an automobile while intoxi[*57] cated, and the revocation of the license for an increased period after the second conviction, is clearly a reasonable exercise of the police power for the protection of the public, which is the purpose of the statutes under consideration, Rudd v. David, Mo., 444 S.W.2d 457, 459, and we do not understand that plaintiff contends otherwise. His position is that since a hardship driving privilege may be granted to a person whose operator’s license is revoked for one year following the first conviction for operating an automobile while intoxicated, it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and a capricious classification to prohibit the granting of a hardship driving privilege during the five-year revocation period following a second conviction. We do not agree.

As noted, under its police power the State may revoke an operator’s license after a conviction for operating an automobile while intoxicated. The granting of a hardship driving privilege during the period of revocation is a matter of grace, and there is no vested right to receive it. The legislative determination that such privilege may be granted following the first conviction but not following a second conviction is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. All who bring themselves by their actions into the group who are not entitled to a hardship driving privilege are subject to the same conditions, and are not denied equal protection of the law, State v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 362 Mo. 299, 240 S.W.2d 886, nor does the group constitute an unreasonable or capricious classification contrary to constitutional standards.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a judgment conforming to the views here expressed.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion by STOCKARD, C, is adopted as the opinion of the Court en Banc.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

All concur.