Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 167.161 (2026)

Suspension or expulsion of pupil

✓ current as of May 2026

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

167.161. Suspension or expulsion of pupil — notice — hearing — felony violation, grounds for suspension. — 1. The school board of any district, after notice to parents or others having custodial care and a hearing upon charges preferred, may suspend or expel a pupil for conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline in the schools or which tends to impair the morale or good conduct of the pupils. In addition to the authority granted in section 167.171, a school board may authorize, by general rule, the immediate removal of a pupil upon a finding by the principal, superintendent, or school board that the pupil poses a threat of harm to such pupil or others, as evidenced by the prior conduct of such pupil. Prior disciplinary actions shall not be used as the sole basis for removal, suspension or expulsion of a pupil. Removal of any pupil who is a student with a disability is subject to state and federal procedural rights. At the hearing upon any such removal, suspension or expulsion, the board shall consider the evidence and statements that the parties present and may consider records of past disciplinary actions, criminal court records or juvenile court records consistent with other provisions of the law, or the actions of the pupil which would constitute a criminal offense. The board may provide by general rule not inconsistent with this section for the procedure and conduct of such hearings. After meeting with the superintendent or his designee to discuss the expulsion, the parent, custodian or the student, if at least eighteen years of age, may, in writing, waive any right to a hearing before the board of education.

2. The school board of any district, after notice to parents or others having custodial care and a hearing upon the matter, may suspend a pupil upon a finding that the pupil has been charged, convicted or pled guilty in a court of general jurisdiction for the commission of a felony criminal violation of state or federal law. At a hearing required by this subsection, the board shall consider statements that the parties present. The board may provide for the procedure and conduct of such hearings.

3. The school board shall make a good-faith effort to have the parents or others having custodial care present at any such hearing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, student discipline hearings or proceedings related to the rights of students to attend school or to receive academic credit shall not be required to comply with the requirements applicable to contested case hearings as provided in chapter 536, provided that appropriate due process procedures shall be observed which shall include the right for a trial de novo by the circuit court.

--------

(L. 1963 p. 200 § 8-16, A.L. 1995 174, et al., A.L. 1996 H.B. 791 merged with H.B. 1301 & 1298, A.L. 1997 H.B. 641 & 593)

(Source: RSMo 1959 §§ 163.010, 165.393)

(2022) School district is not obligated to provide certain due process rights, including right to trial de novo in circuit court, before a student can be denied attendance for failure to comply with vaccine immunization requirements. Baker v. Crossroads Academy-Central Street, 618 S.W.3d 581 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1968–2019 · leading case: Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50 (1970).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50 (1970). · cites it 2× “[6] The Midland County Commissioners established and maintained the county jail, appointed numerous county officials, made contracts, built roads and bridges, administered the county welfare system, performed duties in connection with elections, set the county tax rate, issued…”

Sykes v. Sweeney, 638 F. Supp. 274 (E.D. Mo. 1986). · cites it 4× “The school board in any district, by general rule and for the causes provided in section 167.161, may authorize the summary suspension of pupils by principals of schools for not to exceed ten days and by the superintendent of schools for not to exceed ninety school days.”

State Ex Rel. Sageser v. Ledbetter, 559 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “, `for conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline in the schools or which tends to impair the morale or good conduct of the pupils'] may authorize the summary suspension of pupils by principals of schools for not to exceed ten days .”

Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, 432 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 2× “770; to provide instruction, classes, school or schools, determine per capita cost of college courses, collect approved nonresident tuition fees and charges to resident pupils, § 178.”

Moore by & Through Moore v. Appleton City R-Ii Sch. Dist., 232 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “The trial court held a de novo trial, which was requested by Appellant and is provided for by section 167.161, 2 on November 8, 2006. A decision was rendered by the court on December 19, 2006, upholding the 180 day out-of-school suspension.”

Reasoner ex rel. Reasoner v. Meyer, 766 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “The school board in any district, by general rule and for the causes provided in section 167.161, may authorize the summary suspension of pupils by principals of schools for not to exceed ten school days and by the superintendent *163 of schools for not to exceed ninety school…”

Hamrick ex rel. Hamrick v. Affton Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 13 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “It insures that before a school district makes effective an expulsion from another school district, the expulsion from the other district was accomplished in conformity with section 167.161, RSMo (Cum.Supp.1998) and its due process guarantees.”

O'Rourke ex rel. O'Rourke v. Edmunds, 631 S.W.2d 683 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “On August 4, 1980 respondent initiated expulsion proceedings against appellant pursuant to § 167.161, RSMo 1978 1 , alleging that he committed the vandalism.”

Bishop v. Colaw, 316 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Mo. 1970). · cites it 4× “In case of a suspension by the superintendent for more than twenty days, the pupil or his parents or others having his custodial care may appeal the decision of the superintendent to the board.”

A.S. v. Lincoln Cnty. R-III Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mo. 2019). · cites it 4× “Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 167.161 , 167.171. A.S.”

Mardis v. Hannibal Pub. Sch. Dist., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (E.D. Mo. 2010). “§ 167.161; DSUMF, ¶ 59. Janes is entitled to qualified immunity for the 42 U.”

Ring v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. 3, 609 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 167.161, RSMo 1978, authorizes the school board of any district .”

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.