Ott Law Firm

Terry Geldbach, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

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: Terry Geldbach, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 72616 Handdown Date: 03/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Daniel J. O'Toole Counsel for Appellant: Steven P. Andreyuk Counsel for Respondent: Evan J. Buchheim Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on June 2, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. ORDER Terry Geldbach ( Driver) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County sustaining the Director of Revenue's (Director) suspension of his driver's license after a trial de novo pursuant to Section 302.535, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1996. Driver claims the blood analysis test results were improperly admitted into evidence because Director failed to show that: (1) an approved standard simulated solution was used to calibrate the breathalyzer machine; and (2) the solution used to calibrate the breathalyzer machine had been certified by the manufacturer. However, Driver has failed to preserve this alleged error by making a proper, timely objection to the admission of the breath test results. Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 341 (Mo. banc 1992).

As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm by written order. A memorandum of law setting forth the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties for their use only. Due to our decision, we also deny Driver's "Motion for Court Costs and Attorney's Fees." The judgment is affirmed 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

In re: Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101182

dismissed

The Missouri Supreme Court found that attorney Brian Todd Goldstein violated professional conduct rules by mishandling client funds and engaging in dishonest conduct, including taking clients without informing his law firm, misrepresenting trust account practices, and misappropriating over $585,000 from more than 100 clients. The Court ordered Goldstein disbarred based on violations of rules governing safekeeping of property and dishonest conduct.

Corporate LawCivil Litigationper_curiam2,484 words
Read opinion

In re: Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 13, 2026#SC101157

modified

Attorney Arensberg was disciplined for knowingly drafting fraudulent loan documents to diminish a client's son's marital estate during divorce proceedings. Rather than the agreed-upon reprimand, the court imposed an indefinite suspension with a six-month waiting period for reinstatement, stayed pending successful completion of one-year probation.

Family LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,367 words
Read opinion