302.311. Suspension or revocation — appeals from — procedure. — In the event an application for a license is denied or withheld, or in the event that a license is suspended or revoked by the director, the applicant or licensee so aggrieved may appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence in the manner provided by chapter 536 for the review of administrative decisions at any time within thirty days after notice that a license is denied or withheld or that a license is suspended or revoked. Upon such appeal the cause shall be heard de novo and the circuit court may order the director to grant such license, sustain the suspension or revocation by the director, set aside or modify the same, or revoke such license. Appeals from the judgment of the circuit court may be taken as in civil cases. The prosecuting attorney of the county where such appeal is taken, shall appear in behalf of the director, and prosecute or defend, as the case may require.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
180
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case:
White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010).
White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010).
· cites it 22× “White filed a petition for judicial review of the administrative suspension in the Henry County circuit court, citing section 302.311, RSMo 2000. Although Mr. White stated in his petition that he was seeking judicial review under section 302.”
Nichols v. Dir. of Revenue, 116 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 76× “” On appeal, Nichols claims that the trial court erred in dismissing Count I and ruling that section 302.311 1 was not available to her as a remedy of judicial review of the Director of Revenue’s decision to suspend her license.”
Kinzenbaw v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 32× “Kinzenbaw must plead and prove these elements in the same way as in any other civil case.”
Romans v. Dir. of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 19× “The Director claims the trial court was barred from entertaining the petition because the petition was not filed within thirty days of the notice of revocation as required by Section 302.311, RSMo 1986. The issue is whether the thirty-day filing requirement of Section 302.”
Folkedahl v. Dir. of Revenue, 307 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 36× “The Director of Revenue (“the Director”) appeals the trial court’s judgment sustaining Erik Folkedahl’s petition for review pursuant to section 302.311 and setting aside the suspension of Folkedahl’s driving privilege.”
State Ex Rel. Dir. of Revenue v. Gaertner, 32 S.W.3d 564 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 17× “4 should be read in pari materia with section 302.311, RSMo 1994, which states, in relevant part: In the event an application for a license is denied or withheld, or in the event that a license is suspended or revoked by the director, the applicant or licensee so aggrieved may…”
Beach v. Dir. of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “It was not a notice as contemplated in § 302.311, RSMo 1994. On January 5, 1995, Beach filed a petition for review pursuant to § 302.”
Wampler v. Dir. of Revenue, 48 S.W.3d 32 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Wampler filed a petition for review in circuit court contesting the director’s action, under section 302.311. 2 The director’s general counsel filed an answer and a certified copy of the director’s administrative records.”
Radmacher v. Dir. of Revenue, 405 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 23× “Radmacher filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to section 302.311, RSMo. At the hearing on Radmacher’s petition, the circuit court took judicial notice of the *609 criminal case on which the disqualification was based and admitted Exhibit 1, certified copies of the…”
Gehrs v. Dir. of Revenue, 965 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 17× “On April 26,1996, Gehrs filed a petition for trial de novo pursuant to section 302.311 RSMo 1994. He alleged that Robert Adler contacted the Department of Revenue in March 1996 to cheek on the status of his ease and was advised that the findings and conclusions were mailed to…”
Silman v. Dir. of Revenue, 880 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 9× “” The notice advised Licensee of his right “to appeal this decision to the circuit court of your county of residence in accordance with Section 302.311, RSMo.” Following the dictates of § 302.”
Welch v. Dir. of Revenue, 859 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 11× “You have 30 days from the date below to appeal this decision to the circuit court of your county of residence in accordance with section 302.311, RSMo.” 2 Below this statement in a space designated “Date Mailed” was the handwritten entry “5-14-90”.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.