288.230. Power to subpoena records and witnesses — mileage and per diem for witnesses — witness's right against self-incrimination, procedure to claim, effect. — 1. In the discharge of the duties imposed by this law, the director, the commission, an appeals tribunal, and any duly authorized representative of any of them shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations, take depositions, certify to official acts, and issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with a disputed determination or any other phase of the administration of this law. Witnesses subpoenaed pursuant to this subsection shall be allowed mileage and per diem at a rate fixed by the division. Such fees shall be deemed a part of the expense of administering this law.
2. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records before the director, the commission, an appeals tribunal, or any duly authorized representative of any of them on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.
Notes of Decisions
Div. of Emp. Sec. v. Ferger, 781 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “Louis Circuit Court to determine if an administrative subpoena duces tecum, issued pursuant to § 288.230, RSMo 1986, was enforceable. The trial court held that the Division was authorized by statute to issue such a subpoena, that the subpoena was sufficiently specific and…”
In re Hein, 584 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with a disputed determination or any other phase of the administration of this law.”
State Ex Rel. North v. Kirtley, 327 S.W.2d 166 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 2× “340, regarding investigation under the Sales Tax Act; Section 288.230, subd. 2, regarding investigations under the Employment Security Act; Section 330.”
State ex rel. Von Hoffman Press, Inc. v. Saitz, 604 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “We fail to see how this use of the information will affect honesty in reporting to the Division particularly in light of the broad subpoena power afforded it under § 288.230, RSMo 1969. Once the Relator is granted access to the necessary documents, the director may request a…”
Missouri Ethics Comm'n v. Yolonda Fountain-Henderson, 502 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “2d at 632 (citing Section 288.230(1), RSMo 1969). Ten years later, we applied Hein to another case regarding the validity of an administrative subpoena, and again pointed to the statute to note that the Division of Employment Security has expressly been given the authority to…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.230(1) — 3 cases
In re Hein, 584 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
“issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with a disputed determination or any other phase of the administration of this law.”
Missouri Ethics Comm'n v. Yolonda Fountain-Henderson, 502 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
“2d at 632 (citing Section 288.230(1), RSMo 1969). Ten years later, we applied Hein to another case regarding the validity of an administrative subpoena, and again pointed to the statute to note that the Division of Employment Security has expressly been given the authority to…”
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.