Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 105.726 (2026)

Law, how construed

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

105.726. Law, how construed — moneys unavailable, when — representation by attorney general, when. — 1. Nothing in sections 105.711 to 105.726 shall be construed to broaden the liability of the state of Missouri beyond the provisions of sections 537.600 to 537.610, nor to abolish or waive any defense at law which might otherwise be available to any agency, officer, or employee of the state of Missouri. Sections 105.711 to 105.726 do not waive the sovereign immunity of the state of Missouri.

2. The creation of the state legal expense fund and the payment therefrom of such amounts as may be necessary for the benefit of any person covered thereby are deemed necessary and proper public purposes for which funds of this state may be expended.

3. Moneys in the state legal expense fund shall not be available for the payment of any claim or any amount required by any final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction against a board of police commissioners established under chapter 84, including the commissioners, any police officer, notwithstanding sections 84.330 and 84.710, or other provisions of law, other employees, agents, representative, or any other individual or entity acting or purporting to act on its or their behalf. Such was the intent of the general assembly in the original enactment of sections 105.711 to 105.726, and it is made express by this section in light of the decision in Wayman Smith, III, et al. v. State of Missouri, 152 S.W.3d 275. Except that the commissioner of administration shall reimburse from the legal expense fund the boards of police commissioners established under chapter 84 for liability claims otherwise eligible for payment under section 105.711 paid by such boards on an equal share basis per claim up to a maximum of two million dollars per fiscal year.

4. If the representation of the attorney general is requested by a board of police commissioners, the attorney general shall represent, investigate, defend, negotiate, or compromise all claims under sections 105.711 to 105.726 for the board of police commissioners, any police officer, other employees, agents, representatives, or any other individual or entity acting or purporting to act on their behalf. The attorney general may establish procedures by rules promulgated under chapter 536 under which claims must be referred for the attorney general's representation. The attorney general and the officials of the city which the police board represents shall meet and negotiate reasonable expenses or charges that will fairly compensate the attorney general and the office of administration for the cost of the representation of the claims under this section.

5. Claims tendered to the attorney general promptly after the claim was asserted as required by section 105.716 and prior to August 28, 2005, may be investigated, defended, negotiated, or compromised by the attorney general and full payments may be made from the state legal expense fund on behalf of the entities and individuals described in this section as a result of the holding in Wayman Smith, III, et al. v. State of Missouri, 152 S.W.3d 275.

--------

(L. 1983 S.B. 275, A.L. 2005 S.B. 420 & 344, A.L. 2012 Adopted by Initiative, Proposition A, November 6, 2012, A.L. 2025 H.B. 495)

Effective 3-26-25

Severability clause, see § 1.1001

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Hawley v. City of St. Louis, 531 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State ex rel. Hawley v. City of St. Louis, 531 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “Proposition A also amended § 105.726, a statute originally adopted in 1983 as part of the establishment of the State Legal Expense Fund (“SLEF”) for the payment of claims and judgments against state agencies, officers, and employees.”

Ronald Hankins v. William C. Finnel, State of Missouri, 964 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 105.726 (1986). *857 This statute, the State asserts, clearly declares the State’s intention not to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by representing or indemnifying state employees.”

St. Louis Police Leadership Org. v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Commissioners, 465 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “For any claim, lawsuit, or other action arising out of actions occurring before [the date of transfer], the state shall continue to provide legal representation as set forth in section 105.726, and the state legal expense fund shall continue to provide reimbursement for such…”

Anderson v. State, 709 S.W.2d 893 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “711 it should be noted that the legislature adopted § 105.726 at the same time it adopted § 105.”

Asher v. Dep't of Corr. & Human Resources, 727 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “711, the legislature enacted § 105.726, RSMo. 1986. The last cited section provides: “Nothing in sections 105.”

Goines v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support & Child.'s Div., 364 S.W.3d 684 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). “711 makes no specific reference to attorney’s fees and that § 105.726 provides that “[n]othing in sections 105.”

P.L.S. ex rel. Shelton v. Koster, 360 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Section 105.726 provides that nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed to broaden the liability of the State of Missouri beyond the limitations imposed in sections 537.”

Dixon v. Holden, 923 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “They point *379 to § 105.726, which states this law shall not be construed to broaden the provisions of §§ 537.”

Cottey v. Schmitter, 24 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “” § 105.726. The existence of the State Legal Expense Fund does not expand the state’s liability beyond the sovereign immunity provisions and does not contradict the policy of limited sovereign immunity.”

Michael Holmes v. Sarah Steelman & Eric Schmitt (Mo. 2021). · cites it 29× “] In 2003, section 105.726, RSMo 2000, contained only two subsections.”

City of St. Louis v. State of Missouri, & Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney Gen. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 13× “Section 105.726 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2005). In November 2012, Missouri voters passed Proposition A, resulting in the enactment of Sections 84.”

Michael Holmes v. Doug Nelson (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “On March 10, 2016, Respondent requested payment of the Award from the State through the SLEF, which the State denied, leading to his filing the declaratory judgment at issue in this appeal.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 105.726(4) — 1 case

Michael J. Holmes, Appellant, vs. Kenneth Zellers, Andrew Bailey, Mayor Tishaura Jones, Bettye Battle-Turner, Richard Gray, Thomas Irwin, Erwin Switzer, Francis Slay, & City of St. Louis, Respondents. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.