Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
35 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Romans v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2000As we stated in Romans , “[T]he thirty-day time limit of Section 302.311 applies to revocations under Section 577.041.” Romans, 783 S.W.2d at 896 . 1994A driver whose license has been revoked may appeal to the proper circuit court “in the manner provided by chapter 536, RSMo, for the review of administrative decisions at any time within thirty days after notice” of revocation. § 302.311, RSMo 1986; See also, Romans v. Director of Reve nue, 783 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo. banc 1990) (thirty-day time limit of § 302.311 applies to revocations under § 577.041). | 7 | 8 |
White v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2015The Supreme Court of Missouri's opinion in White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010), involved the review of a driver's license suspension under section 302.535 rather than the review of a license revocation under section 577.041, as in this case. 2011It is our view that while the trial court was free to believe or disbelieve any or all of the contested evidence including the records contained in Exhibit 1, see White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 312 (Mo. banc 2010), it appears to have erred as a matter of law when, contrary to section 302.312(1), it determined that these records were not competent. 5 .The recent Supreme Court of Missouri opinion of White involved the review of a driver’s license suspension under section 302.535 rather than the review of a license revocation under section 577.041 as in the present matter. | 3 | 5 |
Rosa v. Director of Revenue Stategreen2 sentences2005Rosa v. Dir. of Revenue, 948 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Mo.App.1997). 2001“In order to revoke a license pursuant to § 577.041, the Director must show that: 1) the person was arrested; 2) the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition; and 3) the person refused to submit to a test.” Rosa v. Director of Revenue, 948 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Mansfield v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2003Section 577.041.4; Burleson at 220-21; Mansfield v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 225, 226 (Mo.App. 2002Section 577.041(4); Mansfield v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 225, 226 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Garriott v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences2010Turning now to Driver’s second argument at trial, that his arrest was unlawful because the police officers had no authority to arrest him outside of the City of Strafford, we note that in Garriott, 130 S.W.3d at 614 , the Director revoked the driver’s driving privileges pursuant to section 577.041 for refusal to submit to a breath analysis test. 2008Garriott v. Director of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 613, 615 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2014Davis v. Director of Revenue, 346 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). | 1 | 1 |
Zummo v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2011“If the court determines any issue not to be in the affirmative, the court shall order the [Djirector to reinstate the license ....” § 577.041.5, RSMo Cum.Supp.2009; see Zummo v. Dir. of Revenue, 212 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Mo.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Yarsulik v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2006The circuit court based its ruling on a misreading of this court’s decision, Yarsulik v. Director of Revenue, 118 S.W.3d 279, 282 (Mo.App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Burleson v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MOgreen1 sentence2003Section 577.041.4; Burleson at 220-21; Mansfield v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 225, 226 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo.banc 2002); Roberts v. Wilson, 97 S.W.3d 487 , 492 n. 5 (Mo.App.2002); and St. | 1 | 1 |
Hinnah v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2002Hinnah v. Director of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Carrongreen1 sentence1999We review this appeal under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence1997In order to revoke a license pursuant to § 577.041, the Director must show that: 1) the person was arrested; 2) the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition and; 3) the person refused to submit to a test. § 577.041.2, Berry v. Dir. of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Mo. banc 1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Powersgreen1 sentence1989Rule 73.01(c)(2); Rains v. King, 695 S.W.2d 523, 524 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Powers, 690 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Rains v. Kinggreen1 sentence1989Rule 73.01(c)(2); Rains v. King, 695 S.W.2d 523, 524 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Powers, 690 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Kiso v. Kinggreen1 sentence1985Kiso v. King, 691 S.W.2d 374, 377 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 736 . 2021Id. at 734 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2012Yet, due to the similarities in these statutes, our Supreme Court "has cited to section 577.041 cases interchangeably with section 302.535 cases when discussing the issues related to probable cause, the standard of review, and the deference given to implicit and explicit factual findings.” Id. at 305 n. 6. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lyons v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2011Yet, due to the similarities in these statutes, our Supreme Court "has cited to section 577.041 cases interchangeably with section 302.535 cases when discussing the issues related to probable cause, the standard of review, and the deference given to implicit and explicit factual findings." Id. at 305 n. 6. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Saladino v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2006Saladino, 88 S.W.3d at 68 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Green v. Director of Revenue
green
2 sentences2004Our court determined that the exclusionary rule does not apply to section 577.041 revocation hearings when we considered this issue in Green v. Director of Revenue. 745 S.W.2d 818 (Mo.App.W.D.1988). 2004Id. at 820 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Roberts v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2003See, e.g., Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo.banc 2002); Roberts v. Wilson, 97 S.W.3d 487 , 492 n. 5 (Mo.App.2002); and St. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Testerman v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2002Testerman, 31 S.W.3d at 475-76 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sullins v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
green
1 sentence2001Sullins, 893 S.W.2d at 850 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gelsheimer v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence1996The appellate court noted that § 577.041 does not require the arresting officer to have reasonable grounds before he makes the initial stop. 845 S.W.2d at 108 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.