# White v. Director of Revenue

> Supreme Court of Missouri · August 3, 2010 · 321 S.W.3d 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750330

## Case

- **Full name:** Adam Ford WHITE, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** August 3, 2010
- **Citations:** 321 S.W.3d 298; 2010 Mo. LEXIS 194; 2010 WL 3269232
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Price
- **Judges:** Patricia Breckenridge
- **Cited by:** 355 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750330

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, "When the burden of proof is placed on a party for a claim that is denied, the trier of fact has the right to believe or disbelieve that party's uncontradicted or uncontroverted evidence. If the trier of fact does not believe the evidence of the party bearing the burd…
- reversing case law holding that Rule 73.01(c) did not apply in license revocation and suspension proceedings and noting “Rule 73.01(c) ... provides that when there are no written findings, the evidence ‘shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result rea…
- holding that, when reviewing challenges to factual findings, the Court “confines itself to determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s judgment.”
- stating, “One way a party contests an issue is by contesting the evidence!,]” and then identifying several methods by which evidence is contested, all of which were present here
- stating that appellate court can review uncontested facts without deference to findings below in review of license revocation

## Opinion text

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. White contested the evidence against him. The record thus indicates a basis for the trial court to disbelieve the director’s evidence. However, I would not overrule the long and consistent precedent of this Court established in Guhr v. Dir. of Revenue, 228 S.W.3d 581, 586 (Mo. banc 2007); York v. Dir. of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. banc 2006); Coyle v. Dir. of Revenue, 181 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Mo. banc 2005); Verdoom v. Dir. of Revenue, 119 S.W.3d 543, 546-547 (Mo. banc 2003); Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. banc 2002); Reinert v. Dir. of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo. banc 1995); Berry v. Dir. of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Mo. banc 1994).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750330. Public record. Not legal advice.