Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 214.132 (2026)

Visiting abandoned family or private burying ground surrounded by private property, right of access, when, enforcement by sheriff

✓ current as of May 2026

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

214.132. Visiting abandoned family or private burying ground surrounded by private property, right of access, when, enforcement by sheriff — court's power to disinter. — 1. Any person who wishes to visit an abandoned family cemetery or private burying ground which is completely surrounded by privately owned land, for which no public ingress or egress is available, shall have the right to reasonable ingress or egress for the purpose of visiting such cemetery. This right of access to such cemeteries extends only to visitation during reasonable hours and only for purposes usually associated with cemetery visits.

2. The sheriff or chief law enforcement officer of the county in which the abandoned family cemetery or private burying ground is located shall enforce the provisions of subsection 1 of this section.

3. Nothing in section 214.131 and this section shall be construed to limit or modify the power or authority of a court in any action of law or equity to order the disinterment and removal of the remains from a cemetery and interment in a suitable location.

--------

(L. 1987 H.B. 60 §§ 2, 3, A.L. 1997 S.B. 58)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2007 · leading case: Farm Props. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Lower Grassy Creek Cemetery, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Farm Props. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Lower Grassy Creek Cemetery, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “§ 214.132 RSMo. The Court further finds that [Respondent’s] witnesses’ uses of [Appellant’s] road occurred during reasonable hours and that their use was for the purpose of visiting and maintaining the cemetery which are ‘purposes usually associated with cemetery visits’ as set…”

Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Morgan v. Kobobel, 176 P.3d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “2006) (discussing Mo.Rev.Stat. § 214.132 (2000)); Davis v. May, 135 S.”

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.