Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 226
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 226.100 (2026)

Principal office to be in Jefferson City

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  226.100.  Principal office to be in Jefferson City — persons authorized to administer oaths. — The principal office of the commission shall be in the City of Jefferson, Missouri.  The said office shall be provided and assigned by the board of public buildings which board may rent or lease offices, if it be found necessary.  The commission shall have a seal bearing the inscription, "Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission", which shall be in the custody of the secretary, and shall be affixed to all official documents of the commission, or of the director, and to such other instruments as the commission shall direct.  The courts of this state shall take judicial notice of said seal.  The commission may sue and be sued in its official name, and for the purpose of suit and other legal proceedings, service may be had on the secretary.  The commission shall be supplied with all necessary books, maps, charts, stationery, office furniture, telephone and other necessary appliances, supplies and incidentals, to be paid for in the same manner as other expenses authorized by chapters 226 and 227.  Each of the members of the commission, the secretary and the director shall have power and authority to administer oaths in all parts of the state, so far as such authority is incidental to the performance of their duties.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 8750, A. 1949 S.B. 1073, A.L. 1999 S.B. 268)

Prior revision: 1929 § 8102

(1974) Held that state of Missouri subjects itself to the same obligations as the federal government by accepting responsibility for administering relocation benefits and has thus consented to be sued in a controversy over relocation benefits.  Also held that entry into occupation of property after initiation of negotiations for the property has begun does not bar recovery of relocation benefits. Tullock v. State Highway Commission of Missouri (CA Mo.), 507 F.2d 712.

(1987) For actions against the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission special venue is fixed in Cole County by 1927 judicial interpretation of section 226.100 since office is established in Jefferson City and thus venue in action against Commission pursuant to this section was improper.  State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 731 S.W.2d 461 (Mo. App.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Tri-Cnty. Levee Dist. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 42 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tri-Cnty. Levee Dist. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 42 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “MHTC argues Section 226.100, RSMo 1994, is controlling.”
State ex rel. Govero v. Kehm, 850 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 14× “1 The basis of the motion was the claim that under section 226.100 the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (“Commission”) can be sued only in Cole County.”
Whitman v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 400 F. Supp. 1050 (W.D. Mo. 1975). · cites it 4× “§ 226.100 RSMo. (1969). The Commission is authorized by Missouri law to exercise the power of eminent domain.”
Lewis v. Brinegar, 372 F. Supp. 424 (W.D. Mo. 1974). · cites it 6× “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 226.100 (1969) provides that the Commission “may sue and be sued.”
State ex rel. Mo. High. & Transp. Com'n v. Hedspeth, 788 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “The first was that because of § 226.100, RSMo 1986, [1] venue of Helm's action was "limited to Cole County.”
Gorman v. State High. Comm'n, 552 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “We find that § 226.100 domiciles the State Highway Commission in Jefferson City.”
Giesler v. Burlington N. R.R., 791 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Therefore, this appeal is within the general appellate jurisdiction of the Missouri Court of Appeals.” Giesler’s Point Relied On and her Argument, however, deal entirely with venue statutes and, specifically, with a choice between the general venue statute, the special corporate…”
State ex rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Hedspeth, 788 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “The first was that because of § 226.100, RSMo 1986, 1 venue of Helm’s action was “limited to Cole County.”
Vs Dicarlo Constr. Co. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. 1972). “Examples therefrom are that the State Highway Commission “may sue and be sued in its official name” (§ 226.100, V.A.M.S.), and the Public Service Commission “may sue and be sued in its official name” (§ 386.”
Martin v. Missouri High. & Transp. Dep't, 981 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 226.100. All statutory references are to RSMo (1994) unless otherwise noted.”
State ex rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Pruneau, 652 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 226.100, RSMo 1978. In response to the petition, this court, through the Honorable James K.”
Crain v. Missouri State Employees' Ret. Sys., 613 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “” The equivalent language in Section 226.100 was construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity in Jones v.”
Show all 18 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.