304.009. Speed limit — violation, penalty. — 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 304.010, a speeding violation of section 304.010 which is over the posted speed limit by five miles per hour or less is an infraction. The court costs assessed for a violation of this section shall be the same as the costs assessed pursuant to section 304.010.
2. No points shall be assessed pursuant to section 302.302 for any speeding violation which is over the posted speed limit by five miles per hour or less.
3. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, a court may issue a warrant for failure to appear for any violation which is classified as an infraction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1978–2015 · leading case:
Knierim v. James, 677 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. 1984).
Knierim v. James, 677 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 15× “Section 304.009, RSMo (Cum.Supp.1983), provides in pertinent part: 1.”
City of Moline Acres v. Charles W. Brennan, 470 S.W.3d 367 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 3× “33(a) in that it did not tell Brennan the date and time of his initial court appearance and did not set forth facts showing probable to cause to believe Brennan violated the Ordinance. After a hearing, the trial court sustained Mr.”
Schrimpf v. Dir. of Revenue, 889 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 7× “Schrimpf relies on §§ 304.009 and 304.010. Section 304.009 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”
Matthews v. Dir. of Revenue, 72 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “As for his claim that the Wyoming documentation does not clearly identify whether the vehicle was commercial or private, which, according to Matthews, would affect the assessment of points, he is relying on cases that discuss earlier versions of §§ 304.009 and 304.010. Prior to…”
State v. Cusumano, 819 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “010 sets a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on any state-maintained highway or divided highway designated and marked as a federal route.”
Merrigan v. Spradling, 564 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “In addition, Merrigan argues the record is insufficient to show the exemption contained in § 304.009, RSMo 1975 Supp. does not apply.”
Carr v. Dir. of Revenue, 95 S.W.3d 121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
“A parallel between this doctrine and our seemingly novel issue exists: an error was made in the civil pleadings submitted before the court but not one significant enough that a party to the proceeding was mislead or confused as to what the substance of the argument was or what…”
Meyer v. Dir. of Revenue, 909 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 13× “Speeding in violation of state law is to be assessed 3 points, whereas speeding in violation of county or municipal ordinance is to be assessed 2 points.”
State v. Weatherwax, 607 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The trooper issued Weatherwax a Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket, charging excessive speed in violation of Section 304.009 in driving 69 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone.”
State v. Patrick, 920 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “Section 304.009, RSMo 1994, commonly referred to as the non-point statute, set the uniform maximum speed limit at 55 miles per hour for all roads and highways of this state which are not part of the interstate system of highways.”
State v. Stokes, 739 S.W.2d 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “See § 304.009, RSMo 1986. He was fined ten dollars.”
State v. Dollens, 878 S.W.2d 875 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The jury acquitted Defendant of driving while intoxicated but found him guilty of exceeding the speed limit in violation of § 304.009, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant appeals from this conviction.”
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.