Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.133 (2026)

Special mobile equipment exempt

✓ current as of May 2026

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

301.133. Special mobile equipment exempt — when permitted on highways, exception. — 1. Special mobile equipment may be moved on the highways of this state from one job location to another or to or from places of storage, delivery or repair without complying with the provisions of the law relating to titling and registration and display of license plates but shall comply with all the other requirements of the law relating to motor vehicles, except that such equipment, other than farm equipment, shall not be operated on state maintained roads or highways on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays, except in emergencies.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section to the contrary, special mobile equipment that travels at a speed above any minimum posted speed limit and is capable of traveling at the uniform maximum speed limits as established in section 304.010, does not exceed the maximum weight limits as established in subsection 3 of section 304.180, and does not exceed the limitations on height, width, or length of section 304.170, so as to require the issuance of a special permit pursuant to section 304.200, may be operated on state maintained roads or highways at any time and on any day.

--------

(L. 1955 p. 627 § 304.265, A.L. 1987 H.B. 531, A.L. 1995 H.B. 717 merged with S.B. 70, A.L. 2003 H.B. 247)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1974–1993 · leading case: Hewitt Well Drilling & Pump Serv., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 847 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hewitt Well Drilling & Pump Serv., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 847 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 301.133, RSMo Supp. 1992. As we understand Hewitt’s theory, the well-drilling rig must be taxed under the motor vehicle use tax provisions simply because it is a motor vehicle.”

Penn v. Columbia Asphalt Co., 513 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “The respondent argues, how'ever, that § 301.133, reasonably construed, discloses that the Legislature did not intend that the rules of the road should govern the movement of road equipment at a construction site, but only from one job location to another.”

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.