Case Name: Carl HAGER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-03-10
Citations: 893 S.W.2d 907
Docket Number: No. 19655
Parties: Carl HAGER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: SHRUM, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 893
Pages: 907–907

Head Matter:
Carl HAGER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 19655.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
March 10, 1995.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rodney P. Massman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.
W. Edward Reeves, Caruthersville, for respondent.

Opinion:
FLANIGAN, Judge.
The Director of Revenue entered an order, effective April 15, 1994, suspending the driver's license of Carl Hager. Pursuant to § 302.311 RSMo 1994, V.A.M.S., Hager filed a timely appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence. On May 12, 1994, after a hearing at which evidence was received, the trial court entered a judgment reversing the Director's order of suspension. The Director appeals.
In connection with this appeal, the Director requested a transcript of the evidence, but no transcript had been made. The record on appeal, through no fault of the Director, does not contain a transcript of the evidence. This omission requires reversal and remand. Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 342[4] (Mo. banc 1992) (appeal in "the seventh case"); Hertel v. Director of Revenue, 887 S.W.2d 775 (Mo.App.1994); Vogel v. Director of Revenue, 804 S.W.2d 432, 434-435[2] (Mo.App.1991).
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SHRUM, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.