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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 226.150 (2026)

Commission directed to comply with acts of Congress relating to road funds and road work

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

  226.150.  Commission directed to comply with acts of Congress relating to road funds and road work — may sell unnecessary tools, commission employees not to purchase, exception. — The commission is hereby directed to comply with the provisions of any act of Congress providing for the distribution and expenditure of funds of the United States appropriated by Congress for highway construction, and to comply with any of the rules or conditions made by the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture, or other branch of the United States government, acting under the provisions of federal law in order to secure to the state of Missouri funds allotted to this state by the United States government for highway construction.  The commission is authorized to pay the state's proportion of the cost of roads constructed with federal and state funds out of the state road fund.  Any money due to the state of Missouri from the United States, under the provisions of such acts of Congress, relating to highway construction, shall be received by the state treasury and deposited in a separate fund, and paid out by the state treasurer on requisitions drawn by an officer of the state highways and transportation commission on a warrant of the state auditor.  Said funds being the funds of the federal government allotted to the state of Missouri, no appropriation of the general assembly for the expenditure of such funds shall be necessary.  The commission is authorized to accept, receive and utilize any road machinery, trucks or supplies donated, loaned or sold to the state by the federal government, and to pay the necessary transportation and other expenses of securing the same.  The commission may also sell any unnecessary or surplus tools or equipment and receive payment therefor and all money received on account of such sales, if any, shall be immediately paid into the state treasury to the credit of the state road fund; provided, however, that no such unnecessary or surplus tools or equipment shall be sold directly or indirectly by the commission to any employees of the transportation department except when such sales are made at public sale open to the general public.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 8754, A.L. 1977 H.B. 185)

Prior revision: 1929 § 8106

(1975) Failure to negotiate as required by federal law deprives trial court of jurisdiction and prohibition is proper remedy for condemnee.  State ex rel. Weatherby Advertising v. Conley (Mo.), 527 S.W.2d 334.

(1987) This section does not require judicial review of Commission's compliance with federal funding in condemnation actions pursuant to section 523.010 where federal funds are being used and court did not err in denying landowner's subpoena for work product of appraisers issued for the purpose of determining whether condemnor complied with federal law by negotiating in good faith and in accordance with appraisers' reports.  Mo. Highway & Transp. Com'n. v. Anderson, Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. banc).

(1994)  Expenditure of state road fund for mitigation plan required by federal Pipeline Safety Act is appropriate expenditure under Art. IV, Sec. 30(b), Mo. Const., as it relates and appertains to the construction of Page Avenue Extension of state highway.  DeMere v. Missouri State Highway and Transportation Commission.  876 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. App. W.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1975–2014 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 22× “at 336 , and that the legislature through § 226.150, RSMo *360 1969 [1] instructed the Highway Commission as to appraisal, negotiation and settlement offers and directed that it comply with the requirements spelled out in 42 U.”
State Ex Rel. Weatherby Advert. Co. v. Conley, 527 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1975). · cites it 22× “010, [1] discussed above in Pinkley , but also, since both Riddick and Dodge involve federal aid projects, § 226.150, which provides in pertinent part as follows: "The commission is hereby directed to comply with the provisions of any act of congress providing for the…”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. City of St. Louis, 575 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “4 (1977); see also §§ 226.150, 226.220 RSMo 1969 & Supp.1977.”
Whitman v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 400 F. Supp. 1050 (W.D. Mo. 1975). · cites it 3× “In pertinent part, § 226.150 RSMo. (1969) provides as follows: “The Commission is hereby directed to comply with the provisions of any act of congress providing for the distribution and expenditure of funds of the United States appropriated by congress for highway construction,…”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Volk, 611 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 226.150, RSMo 1978, has been construed in State ex rel.”
De Mere v. Missouri State High. & Transp. Comm'n, 876 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “Unlike Pinkley , where the court reasoned that the legislature had directed that state funds not be used for the purpose of a rest area, in the case at bar, by virtue of section 226.150, RSMo 1986, the legislature has directed that MHTC comply with conditions imposed by the…”
State ex rel. Nat'l Advert. Co. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 801 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The Missouri Supreme Court has also held that § 226.150 directs the Commission to comply with the regulations of the federal government to secure federal funding for highway construction.”
Tonnar v. Missouri State High. & Transp. Comm'n, 640 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The alleged authority is derivative from § 226.150, RSMo 1978 which requires the Commission to comply with any act of Congress and all rules promulgated by federal agencies necessary to secure federal highway funds.”
Tonnar v. Mo. State Hwy. & Transp. Com'n, 640 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The alleged authority is derivative from § 226.150, RSMo 1978 which requires the Commission to comply with any act of Congress and all rules promulgated by federal agencies necessary to secure federal highway funds.”
State ex rel. Norton v. Rush, 637 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 4× “The commission is mandated by § 226.150, RSMo 1978 ... to comply with the provisions of any act of Congress providing for the distribution and expenditure of funds of the United States appropriated by Congress for highway construction and to comply with any of the rules or…”
Justin Wayne Dale v. Missouri Highways & Transp. Comm'n, Respondent-respondent., 442 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “§§ 4628 , 4630, 4633 and § 226.150 RSMo (2000)." Appellant cites 49 C.”
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.