Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 390
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 390.176 (2026)

Fines for violations

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

  390.176.  Fines for violations — what deemed separate offense — how construed. — 1.  Any person operating as a motor carrier who violates or fails to comply with any provision of the Constitution of this state or of this or any other law, or which fails, omits or neglects to obey, observe or comply with any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand or requirement, or any part or provision thereof, of the division is subject to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars for each offense.

  2.  Every violation of the provisions of this or any other law or of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand or requirement of the division, or any part or portion thereof, by any person operating as a motor carrier is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of continuing violation each day's continuance thereof shall be and be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.

  3.  In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter relating to penalties, the act, omission or failure of any officer, agent or employee of any person operating as a motor carrier acting within the scope of his official duties of employment, shall in every case be and be deemed to be the act, omission or failure of such person.

­­--------

(L. 1951 p. 547, A.L. 1986 H.B. 1428)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Division of motor carrier and railroad safety abolished, duties and functions transferred to highways and transportation commission and department of transportation, 226.008

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1957–1994 · leading case: State v. Graham, 322 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Graham, 322 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 6× “The second contention, which amounts to the assertion that defendant was charged with one thing and convicted of another, is based on the theory that the charge laid in the information was necessarily made under Section 390.176, V.A.M.S. (Laws of 1951, p.”
State Ex Rel. Missouri Div. of Transp. v. Sure-Way Transp., Inc., 884 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “100, and which collaterally estopped Sure-Way from relitigating that issue in the subsequent penalty suits; and (B) When the state moved for complete summary judgment, there was no remaining genuine issue of material fact as to what the amount of the civil penalty should be,…”
Schulte Transp. Co. v. Hewitt, 299 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 2× “2d 857 , in that during the period June 28-December 24, 1952, in violation of the commission’s rules and regulations and of § 390.176 RSMo. 1949, V.A.M.S., he continued to operate a bus line the certificate of convenience and necessity of which had been suspended.”
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.