Schildknecht v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 67480
| Decision Date | 30 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 67480,67480 |
| Citation | 901 S.W.2d 348 |
| Parties | Damon L. SCHILDKNECHT, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept. of Revenue, for appellant.
Kevin M. O'Keefe, Paul E. Martin, Uthoff, Graeber, Bobinette & O'Keefe, St. Louis, for respondent.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the trial court's judgment enjoining the Director's order suspending petitioner's driving privileges. We vacate and remand.
Pursuant to the suspension procedures set forth in §§ 302.500-302.540 (RSMo 1986 and Supp.1993), the Director gave notice to petitioner that his driving privilege was suspended as a result of his arrest for violating a municipal driving-while-intoxicated ordinance. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge the suspension. Following a hearing, petitioner's suspension was sustained. Petitioner subsequently filed a two-count petition in the circuit court on November 4, 1993. In Count I, petitioner sought a § 302.535.1 trial de novo of his suspension. In Count II, petitioner sought injunctive relief asserting the suspension of his driving privilege violated his due process right because the administrative hearing officer had erroneously admitted various documentary evidence over his objections. On November 16, 1994, the trial court entered an order permanently enjoining the Director from suspending petitioner's driving privilege in this matter and dismissing Count I as moot.
On appeal the Director contends the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an injunction because petitioner had an adequate and exclusive remedy at law under § 302.535. We agree.
A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief where there is an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. McHenry, 861 S.W.2d 562, 564 (Mo. banc 1993); Bradley v. McNeill, 709 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.App.1986). Section 302.535.1 provides: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the department may file a petition for trial de novo by the circuit court." De novo review is a remedy at law that has been held to be adequate for purposes of challenging the decisions of the Director. See State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. Pennoyer, 872 S.W.2d 516, 518-19 (Mo.App.E.D.1994).
Petitioner complains that § 302.535.1 de novo review is constitutionally inadequate because, (1) it only provides for post-termination review, and (2) errors at the administrative hearing level cannot be corrected until after the driver begins to suffer the deprivation of the loss of driving privileges. These contentions are without merit. In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 115, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 1729, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Kansas City v. Jordan
...damages if the City failed to follow statutory procedures or wrongfully demolished his building. See Schildknecht v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Missouri, 901 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.App. E.D.1995)(noting that the United States Supreme Court held, in Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 115, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 17......
-
Williams Pipeline v. Allison & Alexander
...law, if an adequate remedy at law exists, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an injunction. Schildknecht v. Dir. of Revenue, 901 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). Appellants argue the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief Williams Pipeline had an adequate reme......
-
State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. Scott, WD
...is required by the dictates of Love, 431 U.S. 105, 97 S.Ct. 1723, and Mackey, 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612. See Schildknecht v. Director of Revenue, 901 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App.1995). In Pennoyer, the court stated that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering the stay orders, "r......
-
Walton v. City of Berkeley
...does not possess the jurisdiction to grant equitable relief where there is an adequate remedy at law. Schildknecht v. Director of Revenue, 901 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). Normally, to distinguish between a legal and equitable action courts look to the remedy requested. Hammons v. Eh......