adversarial hearing in Missouri

2006"An administrative decision is considered to be noncontested’ if 'made without any requirement of an adversarial hearing at which a measure of procedural formality is followed.’ ” Id. at 37 (quoting Strozewski v. City of Springfield, 875 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Mo. banc 1994)).

2006"An administrative decision is considered to be `noncontested' if `made without any requirement of an adversarial hearing at which a measure of procedural formality is followed.'" Id. at 37 (quoting Strozewski v. City of Springfield, 875 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Mo. banc 1994)).

1999Dist., 841 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Mo. banc 1992). 4 An administrative decision is considered to be “noncontested” if “made without any requirement of an adversarial hearing at which a measure of procedural formality is followed.” Strozewski v. City of Springfield, 875 S.W.2d 905, 906 (Mo. banc 1994).

1994Hagely v. Board of Educ. of Webster Groves, 841 S.W.2d 663 , 668 *907 (Mo. banc 1992).

2013See, e.g., Kinzenbaw v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Mo. banc 2001); Vette, 99 S.W.3d at 566-68 (both holding that section 536.150 governs judicial review of “non-contested” administrative cases, such as this one, where the agency’s decision was “made without any requirement of an adversarial hearing”). 5 Section 536.150 (like 536.140) permits the reviewing court to determine whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, 6 and the focus of Radmacher’s points on appeal is that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable; thus, we will address his claims to the extent possib

2003The issue, then, is whether Mr. Vette’s case was contested or noncontest-ed. In Kinzenbaw , a case that also concerned the suspension of a driver’s license under section 302.060(9), the Supreme Court held that because “there was no hearing (or ‘contest’) at the agency, Kin-zenbaw’s case is ‘noncontested’ and thus is governed by section 536.150.” Kinzenbaw, 62 S.W.3d at 52 .

2019Under § 375.141, the Department was authorized to make its licensing decision “without any requirement of an adversarial hearing at which a[ny] measure of procedural formality is followed.” THF Chesterfield N. Dev., LLC v. City of Chesterfield, 106 S.W.3d 13, 18 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (citation omitted).

2019See Grist v. Grist , 946 S.W.2d 780 , 782 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).

2013See, e.g., Kinzenbaw v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Mo. banc 2001); Vette, 99 S.W.3d at 566-68 (both holding that section 536.150 governs judicial review of “non-contested” administrative cases, such as this one, where the agency’s decision was “made without any requirement of an adversarial hearing”). 5 Section 536.150 (like 536.140) permits the reviewing court to determine whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, 6 and the focus of Radmacher’s points on appeal is that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable; thus, we will address his claims to the extent possib

2002See id.

2002Flowers, 979 S.W.2d at 471 .

1995See Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 420 , 94 S.Ct. 2274, 2284 , 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974) ("comparable” does not mean "identical”); Chemplex Co. v. Tauber Oil Co., 309 F.Supp. 904, 908 (S.D.

1995See Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 420 , 94 S.Ct. 2274, 2284 , 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974) ("comparable” does not mean "identical”); Chemplex Co. v. Tauber Oil Co., 309 F.Supp. 904, 908 (S.D.

1995See Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 420 , 94 S.Ct. 2274, 2284 , 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974) ("comparable” does not mean "identical”); Chemplex Co. v. Tauber Oil Co., 309 F.Supp. 904, 908 (S.D.

1995Louis County, 810 S.W.2d 635, 641 (Mo.App.1991) (characterizing an agency decision as non-contested if it is rendered without the requirement of an adversarial hearing, is not subject to administrative review, and determines the legal rights, duties or privileges of any person). 7 .