Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 260.235 (2026)

Appeal, judicial review, procedure

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

  260.235.  Appeal, judicial review, procedure — injunction based on seriousness of threat to environment — performance bond required, forfeited, when. — Any person aggrieved by a forfeiture of any financial assurance instrument, civil or administrative penalty or denial, suspension or revocation of a permit required by section 260.205 or a modification to a permit issued under section 260.205 or any disapproval of the plan required by section 260.220, may appeal such decision as provided in sections 621.250 and 640.013 by filing a petition with the administrative hearing commission within thirty days of the decision.  The notice of the department shall be effected by certified mail and shall set forth the reasons for such forfeiture, disapproval, denial, suspension, civil penalty or revocation.  The department may seek an injunction in the circuit court in which the facility is located requiring the facility for which the transfer of ownership has been denied, or the permit or modification of the permit has been denied, suspended or revoked, to cease operations from the date ordered by the court until such time as the appeal is resolved or obtain a performance bond in the amount and manner as prescribed by rule.  The department's action seeking an injunction shall be based on the seriousness of the threat to the environment which continued operation of the facility poses.  A bond may be required in order to stay the effect of the department's action until the appeal is resolved, in which case such bond shall remain in place until the appeal is resolved.  If the department's decision is upheld, the bond shall be forfeited and placed in a separate subaccount of the solid waste management fund.  Once the administrative hearing commission has reviewed the appeal, the administrative hearing commission shall make a final decision on the forfeiture of any financial assurance instrument, civil or administrative penalty, denial, suspension, revocation, or modification of a permit or disapproval of the plan required by section 260.220.  The administrative hearing commission shall mail copies of its final decision to the parties to the appeal or their counsel of record.  The commission's decision shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to chapter 536, except that the court of appeals district with territorial jurisdiction coextensive with the county where the solid waste processing facility or disposal area is located or is to be located shall have original jurisdiction.  No judicial review shall be available until and unless all administrative remedies are exhausted.

­­--------

(L. 1972 S.B. 387 § 8, A.L. 1975 S.B. 98, A.L. 1986 S.B. 475, A.L. 1995 S.B. 60 & 112, A.L. 2013 H.B. 28 merged with H.B. 650, A.L. 2015 H.B. 92)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: City of St. Peters v. Dep't of Nat. Resources of the State of Missouri, 797 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
City of St. Peters v. Dep't of Nat. Resources of the State of Missouri, 797 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “Peters had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as set forth in § 260.235, RSMo 1986, rendering the court powerless to consider the matter on its merits as it lacked the jurisdiction to do so.”
State Ex Rel. Cnty. of St. Charles v. Mehan, 854 S.W.2d 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “Peters pursuant to § 260.235. 1 There was no hearing because DNR and St.”
Green Hills Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. v. Madison Twp. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 892 S.W.2d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 17× “Peters, this court held that the return of the application to the plaintiff as incomplete constituted a “decision of the agency” which triggered the provisions for review under section 260.235, RSMo 1986. Section 260.235 sets forth the procedure for administrative review of “any…”
The Sunshine & Gov't Acct. Proj. v. Missouri House of Representatives, 688 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). “171 (“[a]ny person aggrieved”); § 260.235 (“[a]ny person aggrieved”); § 287.”
Warren v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 740 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Appellants thereupon requested a hearing per § 260.235, and one was conducted by a “Hearing Officer” designated by the Director of the Department.”
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.