Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

4 Citing cases

  1. Ehler v. State

    254 S.W.3d 99 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    In Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, a case heard before the statute included a non-voting presiding member, a unanimous decision was upheld, even if the sixth member should not have voted. 776 S.W.2d 405, 408-09 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989). The court found that because the statute only required a majority, if the sixth member was ineligible to vote, the majority requirement was met because a majority voted for termination.

  2. Smith v. Morton

    890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times

    It is not necessary for a member of an agency who participates in the decision to have participated in the hearing, but rather the member may officially act solely on the basis of the written record. Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 776 S.W.2d 405, 408 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989) (citing Shrewe v. Sanders, 498 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Mo. 1973)). Review of the forty page decision reflects the second hearing officer carefully considered the written record.

  3. Ruffin v. City of Clinton

    849 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    Noting circuit court had initially remanded to agency because original findings were "conclusionary and of a very general nature"

    We will not assume that the City Council was different on remand than on the date when the evidence was heard. Nor will we assume that on remand, if the membership of the City Council was different, that each new member did not comply with the requirements of ยง 536.080. Change of membership in the administrative body is not alone sufficient to nullify a remanded decision by that body. Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 776 S.W.2d 405, 408 (Mo.App. 1989). In this case, just as in Medley, there was no new evidence presented at the reconvened hearing.

  4. Conrod v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

    810 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that because local authorities allowed the DEA to adopt the seizure and institute forfeiture proceedings, prior to any action in the state court, no Missouri court ever had jurisdiction over the money

    "It" has participated in cases both as a plaintiff and defendant with no questions apparently being raised by other parties or the courts. See, e.g., Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 776 S.W.2d 405 (Mo.App. 1989); Missouri State Highway Patrol v. Diekman, 700 S.W.2d 148 (Mo.App. 1985); Missouri State Highway Patrol v. Robertson, 648 S.W.2d 644 (Mo.App. 1983). See also Board of Regents v. Harriman, 792 S.W.2d 388, 391-393 (Mo.App. 1990) (judgment in action brought by "Southwest Missouri State University", a nonlegal entity not void).