Case Name: Matthew J. STAWIZYNSKI, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-02-24
Citations: 128 S.W.3d 595
Docket Number: No. ED 82948
Parties: Matthew J. STAWIZYNSKI, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 128
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Matthew J. STAWIZYNSKI, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 82948.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Feb. 24, 2004.
John F. Newsham Dill, Bamvakais, Newsham & Miller, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Cheryl Caponegro Nield, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Director of Revenue appeals from the trial court's judgment reinstating the driving privileges of petitioner, Matthew J. Stawizynski, which had been revoked for one year pursuant to Section 577.041 RSMo (2000) after petitioner refused to submit to a chemical test. Applying the principles set out in Hinnah v. Director of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2002), we find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).