Phillip D. Lucy, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED86881
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
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: Phillip D. Lucy, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: ED86881 Handdown Date: 08/15/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Barbara Wallace Counsel for Appellant: John F. Newsham Counsel for Respondent: Joseph D. Diekemper Opinion Summary: Phillip D. Lucy appeals the circuit court's judgment denying his petition for trial de novo filed under sections 302.505 and 302.535, RSMo 2000. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division Five holds: The failure to make a record of the proceedings requires a remand for a hearing on the record. Citation: Opinion Author: Roy L. Richter, Judge Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Norton, C.J., and Ahrens, J., concur. Opinion: Phillip D. Lucy ("Appellant") appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Petition for Trial De Novo filed under sections 302.505 and 302.535 RSMo 2000. We reverse. Appellant was served with a notice of suspension on August 14, 2004. Appellant requested an administrative hearing, which was held on September 27, 2004. The administrative hearing officer sustained the Director of Revenue's ("Director") decision to suspend Appellant's driving privileges. Appellant filed a Petition for Trial De Novo on October 27,
- On March 1, 2005, the Trial De Novo was held before a Traffic Commissioner. The Order assigning the case to the
Traffic Commissioner indicates that the case was assigned "for hearing and determination on the record under practices and procedures applicable before Circuit Judges; record to be made by electronic recording device." There was no record made of this hearing. The Judgment indicates that evidence was adduced. The Commissioner found in favor of the Director. Appellant's Motion for Re-Hearing was denied, and the Presiding Judge adopted and confirmed the findings of the Commissioner in an Order dated July 22, 2005. As stated in Panhorst v. Director of Revenue, "we must reverse and remand to the trial court because the trial court failed to preserve a record of the proceeding." 894 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo. banc 1995). The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a hearing on the record. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450