Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Michelle L. Cullop, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: administrative
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michelle-l-cullop-petitionerappellant-v-director-of-revenue-state-of-miss-12584
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12584
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Michelle+L.+Cullop%2C+Petitioner%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Director+of+Revenue%2C+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=4&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: text; score: 4; evidence: text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Michelle L. Cullop, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 
Respondent/Respondent.
Case Number:  71143
Handdown Date:  11/25/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert Lee Campbell
Counsel for Appellant:  Robert W. Miller
Counsel for Respondent:  James A. Chenault, III
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Petitioner appeals from the trial court's revocation of her driver's license because her blood alcohol 
content was above the legal limit of .10 percent.  See, Section 302.505.1 RSMo (1994).  We affirm.
The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the 
evidence; no error of law appears.  An extended opinion would have no precedential value.  The parties have 
been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the 
judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.