Hankins v. Director of Revenue, SD22737

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation998 S.W.2d 879
Decision Date10 September 1999
Docket NumberSD22737
PartiesRebecca A. Hankins, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, Appellant. 22737 Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District 0

Rebecca A. Hankins, Respondent,
v.
Director of Revenue, Appellant.

22737

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

09/10/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. J. Dan Conklin

Counsel for Appellant: Evan J. Buchheim

Counsel for Respondent: No appearance.

Opinion Summary: None

Prewitt and Barney, JJ., concur.

Kerry L. Montgomery, Presiding Judge

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals a judgment which set aside the Director's revocation of Rebecca A. Hankins's permit to operate a school bus. We reverse.

Effective December 22, 1997, Director suspended Hankins's Missouri driver's license, pursuant to section 302.505,(FN1) for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least .10%.(FN2) Director then revoked Hankins's school bus permit under the provisions of section 302.272 and 12 CSR 10-24.160. Hankins filed a petition for review under section 302.311, RSMo 1994, seeking to set aside the Director's revocation of her school bus permit. Subsequently, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Hankins. Director appeals.

Director's sole point relied on alleges:

The trial court erred in setting aside the Director's revocation or termination of Hankins's school bus permit because this revocation was authorized under section 302.272.5, RSMo Supp. 1997 and 12 CSR 10-24.160 in that Hankins's driving privilege had been suspended under the provisions of section 302.505, RSMo Supp. 1997, for driving with a blood alcohol content of at least .10%.

Our review of this case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). This Court must affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law. Director asserts that the trial court misapplied the law in this case. We agree.

The issue here is whether the Director had authority to revoke Hankins's school bus permit because she had been suspended under section 302.505 for driving with a blood alcohol content of at least .10%. Director claims his authority derives from section 302.272, a comprehensive statute dealing with the qualifications of persons allowed to operate a school bus.

In pertinent part, section 302.272 provides:

1. No person shall operate any school bus owned by or under contract with a public school or the state board of education unless such driver has qualified for a school bus permit...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT