Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 290
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.300 (2026)

Actions for wages by worker authorized

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

  290.300.  Actions for wages by worker authorized. — Any worker employed by the contractor or by any subcontractor under the contractor who shall be paid for his or her services in a sum less than the stipulated rates for work done under the contract, shall have a right of action for double whatever difference there may be between the amount so paid and the rates provided by the contract together with a reasonable attorney's fee to be determined by the court, and an action brought to recover same shall be deemed to be a suit for wages, and any and all judgments entered therein shall have the same force and effect as other judgments for wages.

­­--------

(L. 1957 p. 574 § 10, A.L. 1969 S.B. 142, A.L. 2018 H.B. 1729, et al.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Bonney v. Env't Eng'g, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bonney v. Env't Eng'g, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 70× “in rejecting their calculations for damages; in failing to award prejudgment interest and attorneys fees; in giving deference to an investigative report conducted by the DLS; in denying their motion to amend the pleadings; in not addressing the claims of certain Plaintiffs who…”
State Ex Rel. Evans v. Brown Builders Elec. Co., 254 S.W.3d 31 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 14× “In their petition, Plaintiffs prayed for attorney’s fees and double the amount allegedly underpaid, with interest, pursuant to section 290.300. Plaintiffs’ cases were consolidated for a hearing before the trial court, and on July 7, 2006, the trial court entered a judgment for…”
State Ex Rel. Laszewski v. R.L. Persons Constr., Inc., 136 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “5 Laszewski brought suit under Section 290.300 against both RLP, the *867 prime contractor on the projects, and USF & G, as the surety, alleging that he had been underpaid and should have received $36.”
Douglas White v. R.L. Persons Constr., Inc., Defendant-respondent., 503 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “(“RLP”), for unpaid prevailing wages under section 290.300 1 (“Count 1”) and under a breach of contract claim as a third party beneficiary (“Count 2”).”
Bd. v. Eurostyle, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “The trial court held the employees were entitled to receive double the amount of unpaid wages and attorney fees from Foster, as permitted by § 290.300, but could recover only the amount of unpaid wages from Eurostyle or Safeco.”
State ex rel. Griffin v. R.L. Persons Constr., Inc., 193 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 15× “5 He sought the relief provided by section 290.300 of the Act. In its judgment, the trial court found Appellant began working on the project in September 1999; that he ceased working *427 on the project in December 1999; and that he filed his cause of action on March 26, 2003.”
City of Kansas Ex Rel. Jennings v. Integon Indem. Corp., 857 S.W.2d 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “04 ordered by the trial judge in accordance with the statutory doubling penalty contained in § 290.300, RSMo 1986, (3) prejudgment interest of $7,986.”
Koehler v. Warren Skinner, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “” § 290.300, RSMo 1986. In addition, in this count he asked for punitive damages.”
Thomas v. A.G. Elec., Inc., 304 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Section 290.300. Moreover, workers on public-works construction projects have the right to sue on any bond executed pursuant to Section 107.”
Cement Masons Pension Fund v. William A. Randolph, Inc., 832 N.E.2d 228 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “2d at 812 ; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.300 (1994). Section 290.”
Mortenson v. Leatherwood Constr., Inc., 137 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “See § 290.300. At trial, the parties stipulated that construction of the school addition was a public works project to which the PWA applied, and Workers were directly employed by Leatherwood in performing actual on-site construction work.”
City of Indep. v. Kerr Constr. Paving Co., 957 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “In Integon, this court rejected an argument made by a surety that the trial court erred in doubling the jury’s award of unpaid wages and in its award of attorney fees pursuant to § 290.300, the prevailing wage statute. We found that Integon was liable on the bond under the…”
Show all 21 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.