 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Middleton v. Director of Revenue5/13/1999
r if under age twenty-one, was operating with a blood alcohol content of .02 to .099%, and the Notice of Suspension/Revocation was therefore properly issued to or served upon Petitioner pursuant to Section 302.515 or 302.520, RSMo." (Emphasis added.)
The question of whether Driver, a minor, was operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .02%, was an issue in the case and was injected by Driver's own petition. Section 302.505.1 clearly expresses a legislative intent proscribing minors from operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .02%. Section 302.505.1; see Christman, 968 S.W.2d at 739. "Our standard of review does not permit this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by merely disregarding all uncontradicted evidence that supports Director's contention that all elements for an administrative revocation of [Driver's] license were proven." Kienzle, 944 S.W.2d at 328. "Deference to the trial court's findings is not required when the evidence is uncontroverted and the case is virtually one of admitting the facts or when the evidence is not in conflict." Fischer v. Director of Revenue, 928 S.W.2d 424, 425-26 (Mo.App. 1996). The trial court erred as a matter of law. Its judgment was not supported by substantial evidence.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment reinstating the suspension of Driver's driving privileges. Id.
Separate Opinion: None
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|