Case Name: Thomas E. WAGNER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-06-12
Citations: 53 S.W.3d 167
Docket Number: No. ED 78574
Parties: Thomas E. WAGNER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K HOFF, Chief Judge and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, Judge and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 53
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Thomas E. WAGNER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 78574.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
June 12, 2001.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 9, 2001.
Application for Transfer Denied Sept. 25, 2001.
John E. Counts, Fenton, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon; Attorney General; Charissa L. Watson; Assistant Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, attorney for respondent.
Before MARY K HOFF, Chief Judge and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, Judge and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Thomas E. Wagner (appellant) appeals from the circuit court's judgment sustaining the Director of Revenue's revocation of the appellant's driving privileges for the appellant's refusal to submit to a "breath-alizer" test.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on ap peal, and find the claim of error is -without merit. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).