Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-51-2.2 (“stopping for school bus required”). Defendant argued that the charge could not be sustained because the address of the offense listed on the summons did not match the address of the offense displayed in the video from the school bus. The Appeals Panel concluded that the information on the summons complied with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, providing proper notice of the charge and the court date. In the absence of any evidence of prejudice, the Appeals Panel found no basis for dismissal and affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the violation.