Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 338
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 338.140 (2026)

Board of pharmacy, powers, duties

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

  338.140.  Board of pharmacy, powers, duties — advisory committee, appointment, duties — letters of reprimand, censure or warning. — 1.  The board of pharmacy shall have a common seal, and shall have power to adopt such rules and bylaws not inconsistent with law as may be necessary for the regulation of its proceedings and for the discharge of the duties imposed pursuant to sections 338.010 to 338.198, and shall have power to employ an attorney to conduct prosecutions or to assist in the conduct of prosecutions pursuant to sections 338.010 to 338.198.

  2.  The board shall keep a record of its proceedings.

  3.  The board of pharmacy shall make annually to the governor and, upon written request, to persons licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter a written report of its proceedings.

  4.  The board of pharmacy shall appoint an advisory committee composed of six members, one of whom shall be a representative of pharmacy but who shall not be a member of the pharmacy board, three of whom shall be representatives of wholesale drug distributors as defined in section 338.330, one of whom shall be a representative of drug manufacturers, and one of whom shall be a licensed veterinarian recommended to the board of pharmacy by the board of veterinary medicine.  The committee shall review and make recommendations to the board on the merit of all rules and regulations dealing with pharmacy distributors, wholesale drug distributors, drug manufacturers, and veterinary legend drugs which are proposed by the board.

  5.  A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

  6.  Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, the board may issue letters of reprimand, censure or warning to any holder of a license or registration required pursuant to this chapter for any violations that could result in disciplinary action as defined in section 338.055.  Alternatively, at the discretion of the board, the board may enter into a voluntary compliance agreement with a licensee, permit holder, or registrant to ensure or promote compliance with this chapter and the rules of the board, in lieu of board discipline.  The agreement shall be a public record.  The time limitation identified in section 324.043 for commencing a disciplinary proceeding shall be tolled while an agreement authorized by this section is in effect.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 10012, A.L. 1981 S.B. 16, A.L. 1989 S.B. 39, A.L. 1997 S.B. 141, A.L. 2011 H.B. 412 merged with S.B. 325, A.L. 2019 S.B. 514)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 13148; 1919 § 4720; 1909 § 5772

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1974–1987 · leading case: Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Missouri Dep't of Consum. Affairs, Reg. & Licensing, 731 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Missouri Dep't of Consum. Affairs, Reg. & Licensing, 731 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “The pharmacy board has rulemaking power conferred upon it by §§ 338.140 and 338.280 RSMo. On April 12, 1984, the Board filed an Order of Rulemaking, 4 C.”
Missouri State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Kennedy, 511 S.W.2d 913 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “” The Board now argues that this rule merely clarifies an ambiguity in the statute and is authorized under the broad rule making power prescribed by § 338.140(1). The Board’s argument would carry considerable force if the Commissioner’s ruling had been directed against the…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 338.140(1): 1 case
Missouri State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Kennedy, 511 S.W.2d 913 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “” The Board now argues that this rule merely clarifies an ambiguity in the statute and is authorized under the broad rule making power prescribed by § 338.140(1). The Board’s argument would carry considerable force if the Commissioner’s ruling had been directed against the…”
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.