 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jennings v. Director of Revenue11/30/1999
ghts is barred from doing so.
Appellant has cited no Missouri case in which a state agency has been barred from enforcing its statutory duty on the basis of laches, and this court's independent research has not disclosed such a case. Early Missouri cases acknowledge the general doctrine that laches is not imputable to state government. See Marion County v. Moffett, 15 Mo. 384, 385-86 (1852). See also Parks v. State, 7 Mo. 194, 196 (1841). A later case, Kimble v. Worth County R-III Bd. of Educ., 669 S.W.2d 949, 954 (Mo.App.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 933 (1984), suggests, " aches cannot be invoked to thwart right or Justice, but only to defeat resultant prejudice, if not invoked, to one asserting it . . . ."
The general assembly established consequences that multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated have on an offender's driving privileges. Appellant may not invoke the doctrine of laches to thwart those consequences. Finding no affirmative misconduct by the state in this case, see Director of Revenue v. Oliphant, 938 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Mo.App. 1997), this court concludes that to allow appellant to assert laches would thwart right or Justice. This court finds no resultant prejudice to appellant. To the contrary, appellant has been permitted to drive during a significant period when his driving privileges should have been denied. The judgment is affirmed.
|