Swenson v. Dir. of Revenue, 422 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Swenson v. Dir. of Revenue, 422 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Company (moed, 2020-02-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Company
E.D. Mo. · 2020 · confidence medium
Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369, 378 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013); Winslow v. Nolan, 319 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Price v. Vattes, 161 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005); H2O’C v. Brazos, 114 S.W3d 397, 402 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); Nesler v. Reed, 703 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) on their actions and not necessarily on the written agreements alone.
cited Cited as authority (rule) James Roller and Ruth Roller v. American Modern Home Insurance Co.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“We review questions of law de novo.” Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369, 377 (Mo.App.
cited Cited "see" Rocking H. Trucking, LLC and John Payne Harrison, IV v. H.B.I.C., LLC Michelle Anderson and David Fenton, D.V.M.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369, 378-379 (Mo.App.2013).
discussed Cited "see" In The Estate of Laura B Downs, Deceased: James L Rutter, Personal Representative v. Eldon Bugg
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369 , 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (“jurisdictional” challenges that do not actually affect court’s subject matter jurisdiction are waived if not timely raised). 3 Mr. Bugg’s appellate briefing to this court reflects that he misunderstands our ruling in Bugg VII.
discussed Cited "see" Estate of Downs v. Bugg
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369, 377 (Mo.App.W.D. 2013) ("jurisdictional” challenges that do not actually affect court’s subject matter jurisdiction are waived if not timely raised). .Mr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Toobaroo, LLC v. Western Robidoux, Inc
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Clark v. Francis, 422 S.W.3d 369, 378 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013); Winslow v. Nolan, 319 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Price v. Vattes, 161 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005); H2O’C v. Brazos, 114 S.W.3d 397, 402 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); Nesler v. Reed, 18 703 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). . . .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronda SWENSON
v.
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE
No. ED 99462.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Oct 15, 2013.
422 S.W.3d 369
2013 WL 5634569
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1193
John M. Albright, Poplar Bluff, MO, for appellant., Rachel M. Jones, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Amburg, Cohen, Gaertner.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronda Swenson appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County upholding the Director of Revenue’s suspension of her driver’s license. Swenson contends the trial court erred in affirming the revocation of her driver’s license because the arresting officer violated Mo.Rev.Stat. § 577.041 when he marked the Alcohol Incident Report (AIR) as “refused” and did not allow her twenty minutes to contact an attorney after she requested her lawyer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in affirming the Director’s revocation of Swenson’s driving privileges based on her refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).