Randles v. Schaffner, 56717
| Decision Date | 09 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56717,No. 1,56717,1 |
| Citation | 485 S.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | Ronald L. RANDLES, Respondent, v. James E. SCHAFFNER, Director of Revenue, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Schmidt & Kieffer, Clayton, taken as submitted by respondent.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County reducing the point accumulation on respondent's motor vehicle operator's license and directing appellant to return forthwith said operator's license to respondent. We reverse.
The appeal having been lodged in this court prior to the effective date of new Article V, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri, we have jurisdiction because a state officer, the director of revenue, is a party. Then Art. V, § 3, Mo.Const.; McIntyre v. David, Mo., 431 S.W.2d 216.
Respondent received notice of revocation of his operator's license for 365 days effective November 25, 1970, because of excessive accumulation of points under Section 302.304, Revised Statutes of Missouri.
On February 2, 1971, respondent filed his petition for limited driving privileges and, on February 4, 1971, hearing was held thereon, but no judgment was entered at that time.
Thereafter, on February 11, 1971, respondent filed, apparently in the same proceeding, a pleading denominated Petition for Review of Administrative Decision.' On the same date, an order was entered requiring appellant to return forthwith respondent's operator's license and to reduce the accumulation of points assessed for conviction of traffic laws and ordinances to seven.
Appellant has filed a brief presenting only one point: that the trial court was without jurisdiction, a matter which may be raised at any time. S.C. Rule 55.37, V.A.M.R.; Bash v. Truman, 335 Mo. 1077, 75 S.W.2d 840. Respondent has not favored us with a brief.
It is elementary that where judicial tribunals have no jurisdiction to act, their proceedings are absolutely void, Bash v. Truman, supra. Section 302.311 provides that in the event a license is revoked by the director, the licensee may appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence at any time within thirty days after notice that a license is revoked. The revocation notice admitted in evidence shows that it was mailed December 7, 1970, and respondent acknowledged receiving such notice. The petition for limited driving privilege was filed February 2, 1971, and the petition for review was filed February 11, 1971, both more than 30 days after the mailing of the notice and its receipt in due course by respondent. The statutory limitation of time within which to appeal such a decision as that of the appellant having expired, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Soybean v. Missouri Clean Water
...is confined strictly to the authority given by the statute. See King v. Kinder, 690 S.W.2d 408, 409 (Mo. banc 1985); Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. 1972); State ex rel. Kansas City v. Public Service Com'n, 362 Mo. 786, 244 S.W.2d 110, 115 (1951). In this case, the appellants bro......
-
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. Potts, WD
...cognizance of only those matters invested, so that its power to adjudicate is to the extent of the grant of the statute. Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1972). The special statute defines the right as well as the remedy, so that a grant of relief beyond the authority of the statut......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Moss
...have allowed prohibition as a remedy for lack of jurisdiction have dealt with lack of subject matter jurisdiction, e.g., Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.1972); State ex rel. Sisters of St. Mary v. Campbell, 511 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.App.1974); State ex rel. T. J. H. v. Bills, 504 S.W.2d 76 ......
-
Hart v. Board of Adjustment of City of Marshall, WD
...the legislature is authorized to, and provides a method for review, failure to follow that procedure is jurisdictional. Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1972). The General Assembly may very properly provide for specific review procedures in particular cases. Blydenburg v. David, 41......