302.535. Trial de novo, conduct, venue, what judge may hear, when — restricted driving privilege, when, duration of. — 1. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the department may file a petition for trial de novo by the circuit court. The burden of proof shall be on the state to adduce the evidence. Such trial shall be conducted pursuant to the Missouri rules of civil procedure and not as an appeal of an administrative decision pursuant to chapter 536. The petition shall be filed in the circuit court of the county where the arrest occurred. The case shall be decided by the judge sitting without a jury. Until January 1, 2002, the presiding judge of the circuit court may assign a traffic judge, pursuant to section 479.500, RSMo 1994, a circuit judge or an associate circuit judge to hear such petition. After January 1, 2002, pursuant to local court rule pursuant to Article V, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution, the case may be assigned to a circuit judge or an associate circuit judge, or to a traffic judge pursuant to section 479.500.
2. The filing of a petition for trial de novo shall not result in a stay of the suspension or revocation order. A restricted driving privilege as defined in section 302.010 shall be issued in accordance with subsection 2 of section 302.525, if the person's driving record shows no prior alcohol-related enforcement contact during the immediately preceding five years. Such restricted driving privilege shall terminate on the date of the disposition of the petition for trial de novo.
3. In addition to the restricted driving privilege as permitted in subsection 2 of this section, the department may upon the filing of a petition for trial de novo issue a restricted driving privilege as defined in section 302.010. In determining whether to issue such a restrictive driving privilege, the department shall consider the number and the seriousness of prior convictions and the entire driving record of the driver.
4. Such time of restricted driving privilege pending disposition of trial de novo shall be counted toward any time of restricted driving privilege imposed pursuant to section 302.525. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent a person from maintaining his restricted driving privilege for an additional sixty days in order to meet the conditions imposed by section 302.540 for reinstating a person's driver's license.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
281
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · 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 78× “In section 302.535, the statute authorizing the trial de novo, the legislature placed the burden of proof on the director and provided that Missouri rules of civil procedure apply, which include the rule that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial…”
Nichols v. Dir. of Revenue, 116 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 78× “311 and section 302.535 provide for judicial review of administrative decisions to suspend a license.”
Folkedahl v. Dir. of Revenue, 307 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 27× “In Count I, Folkedahl sought trial de novo pursuant to section 302.535. In Count II, he sought review of the Director’s decision pursuant to section 302.”
O'Rourke v. Dir. of Revenue, 409 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Director contends because these acts were not required by DHSS rules, O’Rourke’s “legal argument [was rendered] irrelevant to the trial court’s determination of whether the Director met his burden under Section 302.535” 4 and that “the trial court erred as a matter of law in…”
State of Missouri v. Kathryn Avent, 432 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “Prior to White, license revocation cases "applied section 302.535 to create a presumption of validity of the director's evidence [and] to place a burden on the driver to produce evidence that controverts or contradicts the director's evidence for the trial court to disbelieve…”
Johnson v. Dir. of Revenue, 411 S.W.3d 878 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to § 302.535, Johnson filed a petition for trial de novo in the circuit court.”
State Ex Rel. Stoecker v. Dir. of Revenue, 734 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 9× “The answer also asserted that the verified officer’s report, a sworn statement, contains a statement to the effect that the officer was certified or exempt under Sections 590.”
Dabin v. Dir. of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 7× “1998, 1 which authorizes the establishment of a traffic court, the appointment of traffic judges, and procedures to be followed in the traffic court, and section 302.535, which enables the presiding judge of the circuit court to assign a traffic judge to hear cases pursuant to…”
Pavlica v. Dir. of Revenue, 71 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “1 The appellant sought *188 attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of an appeal by the Director of Revenue (the Director) of the trial court’s reinstatement of his driver’s license, after a trial de novo, as authorized by § 302.535. The appellant’s driver’s license had…”
Robinson v. Lohman, 949 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 14× “That [Robinson] filed his petition in the associate circuit court which is the improper court pursuant to § 302.535 RSMo which requires the petition for trial de novo be filed in the circuit court.”
Owen v. Dir. of Revenue, 256 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “The motion alleged that trial court jurisdiction to reinstate Owen’s driving privileges could not properly be predicated on either § 302.535 or § 302.311. The court conducted a hearing on the motion on April 18, 2007.”
Hlavacek v. Dir. of Revenue, 129 S.W.3d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Hlavacek filed a petition for a trial de novo pursuant to section 302.535, RSMo 2000. *377 The trial de novo was held on January 2, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.535(1) — 4 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.535(2) — 4 cases
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.