Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 351
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.215 (2026)

Books and records, minutes of meeting

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

  351.215.  Books and records, minutes of meeting — shareholder's right to examine — acquiring person's demand deemed proper, when — penalty. — 1.  Each corporation shall keep correct and complete books and records of account, including the amount of its assets and liabilities, minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders and board of directors, and the names and business or residence addresses of its officers; and it shall keep at its registered office or principal place of business in this state, or at the office of its transfer agent in this state, if any, books and records in which shall be recorded the number of shares subscribed, the names of the owners of the shares, the numbers owned by them respectively, the amount of shares paid, and by whom, and the transfer of such shares with the date of transfer.  Each shareholder may at all proper times have access to the books of the company, to examine the same, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the bylaws.  Any written demand by an acquiring person to examine the books and records of account of each issuing public corporation for the purpose of communicating with the shareholders of an issuing public corporation in connection with a meeting of shareholders called pursuant to section 351.407 shall be deemed to have been made by a shareholder of the issuing public corporation for a reasonable and proper purpose.

  2.  If any officer of a corporation having charge of the books of the corporation shall, upon the demand of a shareholder, refuse or neglect to exhibit and submit them to examination, the officer shall, for each offense, forfeit the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars.

­­--------

(L. 1943 p. 410 § 48, A.L. 1979 S.B. 216, A.L. 1984 S.B. 409, A.L. 1996 S.B. 835)

(1956) Right of stockholder and director to inspect books of corporation and to make abstracts and memoranda therefrom discussed and defined. State ex rel. Watkins v. Cassell (A.), 294 S.W.2d 647.

(1956) Forfeiture under § 351.215 for refusal of officer of corporation to permit stockholder's inspection books held not subject to section 7, Art. IX of the Constitution but affords a right of action in favor of the stockholder. State ex rel. Watkins v. Cassell (A.), 294 S.W.2d 647.

(1958) Appointment of attorney and agent by minor stockholder to act for her in requesting corporate record inspection privilege held void. State ex rel. Dyer v. Union Electric Co.  (A.), 309 S.W.2d 649.

(1958) Court did not err in denying plaintiff's claim as his daughter's natural guardian, under provisions of § 475.025 as it existed before reenactment in 1957, to forfeitures provided for in this section, since as to the stock plaintiff had no rights as natural guardian and upon determination of equitable issues adversely to plaintiff the court had no jurisdiction to render a judgment for plaintiff as to the forfeitures. Dyer v. Union Electric Co. (A.), 318 S.W.2d 401.

(1961) Stockholder had right to inspect books and documents of corporation and writ of mandamus issued to enforce right as to certain specified documents. State v. Ralston Purina Company (A.), 343 S.W.2d 631.

(1962) On transfer to supreme court judgment of trial court, quashing alternative writ, affirmed. Records and documents sought to be inspected were tentative studies prepared solely for information of management and were in nature of confidential inter-office communications and not "books" within meaning of statute. State v. Ralston Purina Company (Mo.), 358 S.W.2d 772.

(1971) Stockholder may have examination of books of corporation made by his attorney solely without stockholder being personally present. State ex rel. Armonette v. C. & R. Heating & Serv. Co. (A.), 475 S.W.2d 409.

(2002) Section does not expressly or implicitly abrogate common law right of inspection.  State ex rel. Brown v. III Investments, 80 S.W.3d 855 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1956–2016 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Brown v. III Investments, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Brown v. III Investments, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 25× “On June 9, 2000, the trial court entered its “judgment” with regard to Appellant’s statutory claims under § 351.215. 2 The trial court issued its writ of mandamus ordering Five I to produce for Appellant’s examination Five I’s federal income tax returns for 1997, 1998, and 1999…”
Dawson v. Dawson, 645 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6× “” The right to inspect is provided for in § 351.215 4 which requires corporations to give shareholders access to certain documents.”
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Ralston Purina Co., 343 S.W.2d 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 17× “The petition alleged that such denials and refusals were wrongfully made, and were in direct violation of § 351.215 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which was set out verbatim therein, and that the appellant was without an adequate legal remedy.”
Walker v. Rogers, 182 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Walker, and Gene submitted a written demand to Albany’s attorney, pursuant to section 351.215, RSMo 2000, 3 to examine the books and records of Albany’s accounts.”
State Ex Rel. Aimonette v. C. & R. Heating & Serv. Co., 475 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 9× “, instead of Section 351.215, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., is also without merit.”
Centerre Bank of Kansas City Nat'l Ass'n v. Angle, 976 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “For instance, shareholders have been allowed to bring individual actions when they assert violation of rights individual to them, such as claims they were personally denied their right to inspect the corporate books and records under Section 351.215, RSMo. See Dawson v. Dawson,…”
Fix v. Fix Material Co., Inc., 538 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The record demonstrates that the controlling shareholders have satisfied their legal obligation to plaintiff under § 351.215, RSMo.1969, by providing access to the corporate records and by providing annual audit reports and financial statements.”
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Ralston Purina Co., 358 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. 1962). · cites it 6× “Since the determinative question is simply whether the three documents relator seeks to inspect are within the purview of the statute he invokes (§ 351.215, RSMo- and V.A.M.S.) a somewhat brief statement of the facts will suffice.”
State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Cassell, 294 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 6× “It is relator’s position that he is seeking to enforce a right given him by statute, Section 351.215 RSMo '1949, V.A.M.S.; that this statutory right of inspection is absolute, and therefore his motives are not a proper subject of inquiry in this proceeding.”
Saigh Ex Rel. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Busch, 396 S.W.2d 9 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 3× “Access to the list of stockholders, however large in number they may be, is readily available to the plaintiffs under the provisions of § 351.215 RSMo.1959, 17 V.A.M.S. As shown in the editorial comment accompanying the aforesaid section of the statute, this section contains…”
Hart v. Kupper Parker Commc'ns, Inc., 114 S.W.3d 342 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “On October 10, 1995, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against KPC seeking to, inter alia, inspect the corporate records and books pursuant to section 351.215, RSMo 1994, and dissolve the corporation pursuant to section 351.”
Black & White Cabs of St. Louis, Inc. v. Smith, 370 S.W.2d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 3× “In his brief defendant states that he had a right to inspect the books under the provisions of § 351.215 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and also under the provisions of Civil Rule 58.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 351.215(2) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Aimonette v. C. & R. Heating & Serv. Co., 475 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). “, instead of Section 351.215, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., is also without merit.”
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.