Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.110 (2026)

Violation of injunction or restitution order, civil penalty

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

  407.110.  Violation of injunction or restitution order, civil penalty. — Any person who violates the terms of an injunction, an order to make restitution, or any other judgment or order issued under section 407.100 shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars per violation.  For the purposes of this section, the circuit court of a county issuing an injunction or restitutionary order shall retain jurisdiction, and the cause shall be continued, and in such cases the attorney general acting in the name of the state may petition for recovery of civil penalties.

­­--------

(L. 1967 p. 607 § 11, A.L. 1973 H.B. 55, A.L. 1985 H.B. 96, et al.)

Effective 5-31-85

(1980) Attorney General not authorized to seek civil penalties for alleged violation of assurance of voluntary compliance; may seek injunctive relief under 407.100. State ex rel. Danforth v. European Health Spa (A.), 611 S.W.2d 250.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1980–2014 · leading case: State v. Polley, 2 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Polley, 2 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “Pol-ley, the State was seeking civil penalties under section 407.110 due to Mr. Polley’s violating the 1987 injunction.”
State ex rel. Danforth v. Eur. Health Spa, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 259 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 15× “That agreement, also approved by the court, provided that the Health Spa would comply with the law and that the Attorney General could institute proceedings under Chapter 407 or any applicable law including a petition for civil penalty under § 407.110. (The agreement did not…”
Lillian M. Lewellen, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Chad Franklin & Chad Franklin Nat'l Auto Sales North, LLC, Respondents/Cross-Appellants., 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 2× “6, and $5,000 for any violation of an injunction, restitution order or judgment issued pursuant to the MMPA, section 407.110. There is no doubt that the punitive damages awards in this case are larger than the penalties authorized under the MMPA.”
Lake Thunderbird Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Lake Thunderbird, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “The trial court, in the September 16, 1975, judgment, stated that violation of its terms would constitute a violation of § 407.110, RSMo.1978. The order of September 9, 1983, however, cannot be considered as rendered pursuant to § 407.”
State Ex Rel. Mobile Home Estates, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 921 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Any person violating the terms of an injunction obtained hereunder shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 407.110, RSMo, and may be prosecuted for contempt.”
State Ex Rel. Webster v. Myers, 779 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Violation of any such consent judgment or consent injunction shall be treated as a *289 violation under section 407.110. (Emphasis added.) Prior to its amendment in 1985, § 407.”
Missouri v. Cannon (In Re Cannon), 36 B.R. 450 (E.D. Mo. 1983). · cites it 3× “-110 authorizes civil penalties only against “[a]ny person who violates the terms of an injunction issued under section 407.110 .... ” It does not authorize the imposition of civil penalties for violating an order to make restitution.”
State ex rel. Webster v. San Juan Prods., Inc., 728 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 5× “100 RSMo 1978, and assessing the five thousand dollar civil penalty authorized by Section 407.110 RSMo 1978 for each violation.”
State ex rel. Webster v. Douglas Toyota III, Inc., 830 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “” The jurisdiction retained by the trial court was its authority to impose a civil penalty, as provided by § 407.110, 5 in the event that respondent violated the consent injunction.”
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.