Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 228.342 (2026)

Establishment or widening of private road

✓ current as of May 2026

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

228.342. Establishment or widening of private road — strict necessity defined — who may petition. — A private road may be established or widened in favor of any owner or owners of real property for which there is no access, or insufficiently wide access, from such property to a public road if the private road sought to be established or widened is a way of strict necessity. As used in this section, the term "strict necessity" shall include the necessity to establish or widen a private road in order to utilize the property for the uses permitted by law. Any petition for the establishment or widening of a private road shall be filed and the proceeding shall be conducted in the circuit court of the county where the proposed road is to be located. The owners of the real property over which the proposed private road shall pass shall be named as defendants.

--------

(L. 1991 S.B. 138 § 1, A.L. 1993 S.B. 236)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Short v. S. Union Co., 372 S.W.3d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Short v. S. Union Co., 372 S.W.3d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 119× “Short claims that the trial court erred by concluding that the definition of “strict necessity” as used in section 228.342 1 required Short to prove that his property could legally be put to an industrial use before he was entitled to the establishment of a private road to…”

Avery Contracting, LLC v. Richard Niehaus, Lisa J. Niehaus, Alicia Niehaus, Creekstone Homeowners Ass'n, & Missouri Highways & Transp. Comm'n, 492 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 24× “Avery then filed a petition against the Creekstone parties and MHTC to establish a private access road pursuant to section 228.342, which provides for the establishment or widening of a private road upon a showing of strict necessity.”

Blue Pool Farms, LLC v. Basler, 239 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× ““Pursuant to Section 228.342 [RSMo 2000] 2 , a private road may be established in favor of an owner of real property for which there is no access to a public road, if the private road ⅛ a way of strict necessity.”

Beery v. Shinkle, 193 S.W.3d 435 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “In Point I, they claim that the trial court erred in granting the respondents a permanent easement across the appellants’ property along the “South Road,” based on “strict necessity,” because in doing so it misapplied § 228.342. 1 In Point II, they claim that the trial court…”

Johnston v. Shoults, 160 S.W.3d 440 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “(“Johnston”) establishing a 20-foot wide roadway by strict necessity, pursuant to section 228.342, across land owned by the Shoultses in Dent County, Missouri.”

Kirkpatrick v. Webb, 58 S.W.3d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “In Appellants’ second point, they argue the trial court erred in its determination that the Appellants were not entitled to an easement by necessity.”

Stoesz v. Wright, 541 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “Second, Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting Respondents' motion for summary judgment to the extent it concluded that either Sections 228.342 or 228.369 required Appellants to join all owners of land along Mustang Lane with rights in the access easement.”

Farrow v. Brown, 873 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff appeals the circuit court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in plaintiffs action to establish a private road of necessity, § 228.342, RSMo. Supp.1992. 1 We reverse and remand.”

Baetje v. Eisenbeis, 296 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “Additionally, while the trial court specifically denied the Eisenbeises’ request for a private road pursuant to Section 228.342 RSMo (2007), the trial court stated that “if it had not found that the implied easement was valid, it would have found that Eisenbeis’ [sic] had met…”

Moss Springs Cemetery Ass'n v. Johannes, 970 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “Appellant filed a two-count petition seeking quiet title of certain real property in Jasper County and to establish a private road by necessity through Respondents’ property under Section 228.342, RSMo 1994. On Count I, the trial court quieted title in Appellant by summary…”

Wolfe v. Swopes, 955 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “340 RSMo 1986 (repealed 1991), and § 228.342 RSMo Supp.1992, enacted to replace it.”

Howell v. Rickard, 295 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “See § 228.342, RSMo 2000. As such, this Court’s research found no case law in Missouri, on the issue of the location or placement of a common law easement by necessity per se, nor did the parties provide any.”

Show all 38 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.