Hankins v. Director of Revenue, No. 22737

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtMONTGOMERY; PREWITT, J., and BARNEY
Citation998 S.W.2d 879
PartiesRebecca A. HANKINS, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.
Decision Date10 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. 22737

Page 879

998 S.W.2d 879
Rebecca A. HANKINS, Respondent,
No. 22737.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division Two.
Sept. 10, 1999.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, and Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

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 § 302.505, 1 for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least .10%. 2 Director then

Page 880

revoked Hankins's school bus permit under the provisions of § 302.272 and 12 CSR 10-24.160. Hankins filed a petition for review under § 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 § 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 § 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 § 302.505 for driving with a blood alcohol content of at least .10%. Director claims his authority derives from § 302.272, a comprehensive statute dealing with the qualifications of persons allowed to operate a school bus.

In pertinent part, § 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 under this section and complied with the pertinent rules and regulations of the department of revenue. A school bus permit shall be issued to any applicant who meets the following qualifications:

(1) The applicant has a valid state license issued under this chapter ...;

(2) The applicant is at least twenty-one years of age;

(3) The applicant has passed a medical examination, including vision and hearing tests, as prescribed by the director of revenue ...; and

(4) The applicant has successfully passed an examination for the operation of a school bus as prescribed by the director of revenue....


5. The director of revenue, to the best of the director's knowledge, shall not issue or renew a school bus...

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