Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 106
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 106.220 (2026)

Forfeiture of office

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  106.220.  Forfeiture of office — reasons for. — Any person elected or appointed to any county, city, town or township office in this state, except such officers as may be subject to removal by impeachment, who shall fail personally to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office, or who shall be guilty of any willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official duty, or who shall knowingly or willfully fail or refuse to do or perform any official act or duty which by law it is his duty to do or perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state, shall thereby forfeit his office, and may be removed therefrom in the manner provided in sections 106.230 to 106.290.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 12828)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 11202; 1919 § 9175; 1909 § 10204

(1956)  Statutory remedy for removal of officers, adopted under section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, is not exclusive and does not limit the jurisdiction of the supreme court in quo warranto. State inf. Dalton v. Mosley, 365 Mo. 711, 286 S.W.2d 721.

(1956) Sheriff who failed to enforce laws against gambling and against lotteries for charitable or civic purposes and who solicited reward for recovery of stolen property held to have forfeited office and could be ousted by quo warranto.  State ex inf. Dalton v. Mosley, 365 Mo. 711, 286 S.W.2d 721.

(1956) Proceeding in quo warranto to declare forfeiture of offices of two judges of county court was civil in nature and burden was upon informant to prove by preponderance of the evidence that by commission of acts alleged respondents had forfeited their respective offices and statutes defining grounds for removal would be given strict construction.  State on inf. of Connett v. Madget (Mo.) 297 S.W.2d 417.

(1964) Sheriff who placed or had placed a billfold, which had been taken in a burglary and later recovered, in a suspect's automobile for use in prosecution of the suspect, was guilty of willful and malicious oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority in office and thereby forfeited his office. State v. Elliott (Mo.), 380 S.W.2d 929.

(1971) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear quo warranto proceedings to remove county officer.  State v. Orton (Mo.), 465 S.W.2d 618.

(1979) Sheriff who represented to the county court that the cost for food preparation was greater than the actual cost and retained the difference for personal use was guilty of willful and fraudulent violation of an official duty. State ex inf. Ashcroft v. Riley (Mo.), 590 S.W.2d 903.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case: State on the Info. of Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State on the Info. of Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. 2001). · cites it 6× “The court also found that the respondent “did not have a duty to require Assistant Prosecutors to pay fees they earned in other counties into the Clay County general fund” and that the “Respondent was not in violation of Section 106.220, R.S.Mo. when Respondent failed to order…”
State Ex Inf. Ashcroft v. Riley, 590 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. 1979). · cites it 18× “A strict construction of the phrase "willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official duty," § 106.220, RSMo 1969 must be applied in this case.”
State ex inf. Danforth v. Orton, 465 S.W.2d 618 (Mo. 1971). · cites it 26× “], and § 106.220 et seq., RSMo, vests' exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit court to hear such actions.”
Montague Simmons v. Robert McCulloch, 501 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “Section 106.220 provides that any elected official is subject to removal if he: (1) “fail[s] personally to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office;” (2) commits “any willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official duty;” or, (3) “knowingly or…”
State ex inf. Nixon v. Russell, 45 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “neglect of any official duty” under § 106.220, RSMo 1994, 1 the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
State ex inf. Thomas v. Olvera, 987 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “She now appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by entering the summary judgment which removed her from office because there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she willfully neglected any of her official duties, as required for removal pursuant to §…”
Parker v. Sherman, 456 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. 1970). · cites it 3× “is time to the performance of the duties of such office, or who shall be guilty of any willful or fraudulent *579 violation or neglect of any official duty, or who shall knowingly or willfully fail or refuse to do or perform any official act or duty which by law it is his duty…”
State ex rel. Dalton v. Mosley, 286 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 4× “The present attack is based on the same ground as that formerly sought to be tendered, i.”
State on the Info. of Connett, 297 S.W.2d 416 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 4× “This section provides: “Every' person exercising or holding any office of public trust who shall be guilty of willful and malicious oppression, partiality, misconduct or abuse of authority in his official capacity ór under color of his office, shall, on conviction, be deemed…”
State ex inf. Fuchs v. Foote, 903 S.W.2d 535 (Mo. 1995). · cites it 2× “The removal of certain public officials, and county sheriffs in particular, is governed by § 106.220, RSMo 1994, that provides: Any person elected or appointed to any county, city, town or township office in this state, except such offices as may be subject to removal by…”
State ex inf. Stephens v. Fletchall, 412 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 3× “110 1 and therefore a cause for forfeiture of office under § 106.220. We shall relate those charges as briefly as possible, omitting those which are not directed at this Respondent, and numbering them according to paragraph numbers appearing in the amended information.”
State ex inf. Peach v. Goins, 575 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. 1978). · cites it 2× “Section 106.220, provides that an elected official who is guilty of any willful violation or neglect of duty shall forfeit office.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.