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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 226.600 (2026)

Penalty

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

  226.600.  Penalty. — Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of sections 226.500 to 226.600 shall upon conviction be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each day of violation shall be considered a separate offense.

­­--------

(L. 1965 2d Ex. Sess. p. 900 § 12)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1975–1993 · leading case: Nat'l Advert. Co. v. Missouri State High. & Transp. Comm'n, 862 S.W.2d 953 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Advert. Co. v. Missouri State High. & Transp. Comm'n, 862 S.W.2d 953 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “500 to § 226.600 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1990 (partially revised 1992), which permits said signs.”
Superior Outdoor Advert. Co. v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 641 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Superior’s sole complaint is that the notice was defective in failing to “specify the remedial action which is required to correct the unlawfulness.”
Whitman v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 400 F. Supp. 1050 (W.D. Mo. 1975). · cites it 2× “It must be noted that the provisions of tlie 1965 Act are penal in nature, as a violation of the Act is punishable as a misdemeanor for each day of violation § 226.600 RSMo. (1969). As such, Missouri law requires that the provisions of the Act be strictly construed against the…”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Heil, 597 S.W.2d 257 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 226.600 RSMo.1969. Considering the statutory purpose and the fact that Commission had experienced difficulty in having the sign removed we believe that the action partakes of the nature of an action to abate a public nuisance.”
Drury Dev. Corp. v. State High. Comm'n of Missouri, 637 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “500 to § 226.600 RSMo 1978.” If the role of our courts is to merely accept the decision of any state agency based upon some unspecified statutory reference, without full consideration of the facts and circumstances which led to that decision, then there appears little merit in…”
Indep. Stave Co. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 702 S.W.2d 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “500 through § 226.600, RSMo 1969 and RSMo 1978, which regulate outdoor advertising adjacent to the interstate and primary highway systems.”
Osage Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 680 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “500 through § 226.600 to bring the Missouri legislation into compliance.”
Osage Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 677 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “§ 226.600. The means of redress for respondent Osage Outdoor Advertising, Inc.”
Gannett Outdoor Co. of Kansas City v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 710 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). “*507 Gannett’s second assertion that his prior reservation of a right to erect a sign without actual placement of a sign is without merit.”
Headrick Outdoor, Inc. v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 770 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “500, RSMo 1986 and section 226.600, RSMo 1986. This rule is consistent with the Federal rule, 23 CSR 750.”
Boswell v. State High. Comm'n, 642 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “500-§ 226.600. 1 Boswell advances the same “points relied on” in both appeals.”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Marcum Oil Co., 624 S.W.2d 884 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “However, the argument against injunctive relief in that case was based solely on the fact that § 226.600 declares a violation of §§ 226.”
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.