hardship driving privilege (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

hardship driving privilege in Missouri

15 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2013 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Williams v. Schaffnergreen
mo · 1972 · cited in 5 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1973–1998
2 sentences

1998“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).

1993Williams v. Schaffner, 477 S.W.2d 55, 57 [1, 2] (Mo. banc 1972).

55
Hardwick v. Director of Revenuegreen
moctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989In Hardwick v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Mo.App.1988), this court stated that the court had no jurisdiction to grant a hardship privilege when there were two DWI convictions within a five year period.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Hagan v. Director of Revenue green
mo · 1998
2 sentences

2012"If anything, the greater public good is served by liberally interpreting the hardship driving privilege statute in favor of keeping multiple offenders off the road.” Hagan, 968 S.W.2d at 706 .

2004“If anything, the greater public good is served by liberally interpreting the hardship driving privilege statute in favor of keeping multiple offenders off the road.” Id.

41999–2013
Zitzman v. Lohman green
moctapp · 1996
1 sentence

2013Id. (emphasis added).

12013–2013
Beach v. Director of Revenue green
moctapp · 1996
1 sentence

1999Id.

11999–1999
Weir v. Director of Revenue green
moctapp · 1988
1 sentence

1990The court, relying in part on Weir v. Director of Revenue, 750 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App.1988), ruled, “a judgment granting a hardship driving privilege is final thirty days after entry of the judgment.” Id. at 26.

11990–1990
Eccarius v. Director of Revenue green
moctapp · 1989
2 sentences

1990Upon application accompanied by a copy of the applicant's driving record for the next preceding five years as certified by the Director and proof of financial responsibility, the trial court may grant the hardship driving privilege subject to certain qualifications and prohibitions. § 302.309.3; Eccarius, 774 S.W.2d at 575-76 .

1990Upon application accompanied by a copy of the applicant’s driving record for the next preceding five years as certified by the Director and proof of financial responsibility, the trial court may grant the hardship driving privilege subject to certain qualifications and prohibitions. § 302.309.3; Eccarius, 774 S.W.2d at 575-76 .

11990–1990
Robinson v. Director of Revenue green
moctapp · 1989
2 sentences

1989In Robinson the trial court granted a hardship driving privilege for one year beginning July 30, 1985. 762 S.W.2d at 873 .

1989Id.

11989–1989
State v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. green
mo · 1951
2 sentences

1972All 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.

1972All 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.

11972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.309 (10) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.060 (8) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.304 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.525 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

MO 15 (1972–2013) NY 3 (2025–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check