Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 523.010 (2026)

Lands may be condemned, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

523.010. Lands may be condemned, when — petition — parties — power of public utility to condemn certain lands, limitation. — 1. In case land, or other property, is sought to be appropriated by any road, railroad, street railway, telephone, telegraph or any electrical corporation organized for the manufacture or transmission of electric current for light, heat or power, including the construction, when that is the case, of necessary dams and appurtenant canals, flumes, tunnels and tailraces and including the erection, when that is the case, of necessary electric steam powerhouses, hydroelectric powerhouses and electric substations or any oil, pipeline or gas corporation engaged in the business of transporting or carrying oil, liquid fertilizer solutions, or gas by means of pipes or pipelines laid underneath the surface of the ground, or other corporation created under the laws of this state for public use, and such corporation and the owners cannot agree upon the proper compensation to be paid, or in the case the owner is incapable of contracting, be unknown, or be a nonresident of the state, such corporation may apply to the circuit court of the county of this state where such land or any part thereof lies by petition setting forth the general directions in which it is desired to construct its road, railroad, street railway, telephone, or telegraph line or electric line, including, when that is the case, the construction and maintenance of necessary dams and appurtenant canals, tunnels, flumes and tailraces and, when that is the case, the appropriation of land submerged by the construction of such dam, and including the erection and maintenance, when that is the case, of necessary electric steam powerhouses, hydroelectric powerhouses and electric substations, or oil, pipeline, liquid fertilizer solution pipeline, or gas line over or underneath the surface of such lands, a description of the real estate, or other property, which the company seeks to acquire; the names of the owners thereof, if known; or if unknown, a pertinent description of the property whose owners are unknown and praying the appointment of three disinterested residents of the county, as commissioners, or a jury, to assess the damages which such owners may severally sustain in consequence of the establishment, erection and maintenance of such road, railroad, street railway, telephone, telegraph line, or electrical line including damages from the construction and maintenance of necessary dams and the condemnation of land submerged thereby, and the construction and maintenance of appurtenant canals, flumes, tunnels and tailraces and the erection and maintenance of necessary electric steam powerhouses, hydroelectric powerhouses and electric substations, or oil, pipeline, or gas line over or underneath the surface of such lands; to which petition the owners of any or all as the plaintiff may elect of such parcels as lie within the county or circuit may be made parties defendant by names if the names are known, and by the description of the unknown owners of the land therein described if their names are unknown.

2. If the proceedings seek to affect the lands of persons under conservatorship, the conservators must be made parties defendant. If the present owner of any land to be affected has less estate than a fee, the person having the next vested estate in remainder may at the option of the petitioners be made party defendant; but if such remaindermen are not made parties, their interest shall not be bound by the proceedings.

3. It shall not be necessary to make any persons party defendants in respect to their ownership unless they are either in actual possession of the premises to be affected claiming title or having a title of the premises appearing of record upon the proper records of the county.

4. Except as provided in subsection 5 of this section, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to give a public utility, as defined in section 386.020, or a rural electric cooperative, as provided in chapter 394, the power to condemn property which is currently used by another provider of public utility service, including a municipality or a special purpose district, when such property is used or useful in providing utility services, if the public utility or cooperative seeking to condemn such property, directly or indirectly, will use or proposes to use the property for the same purpose, or a purpose substantially similar to the purpose for which the property is being used by the provider of the public utility service.

5. A public utility or a rural electric cooperative may only condemn the property of another provider of public utility service, even if the property is used or useful in providing utility services by such provider, if the condemnation is necessary for the public purpose of acquiring a nonexclusive easement or right-of-way across the property of such provider and only if the acquisition will not materially impair or interfere with the current use of such property by the utility or cooperative and will not prevent or materially impair such provider of public utility service from any future expansion of its facilities on such property.

6. If a public utility or rural electric cooperative seeks to condemn the property of another provider of public utility service, and the conditions in subsection 4 of this section do not apply, this section does not limit the condemnation powers otherwise possessed by such public utility or rural electric cooperative.

7. Suits in inverse condemnation or involving dangerous conditions of public property against a municipal corporation established under Article VI, Section 30(a) of the Missouri Constitution shall be brought only in the county where such land or any part thereof lies.

8. For purposes of this chapter, the authority for an electrical corporation as defined in section 386.020, except for an electrical corporation operating under a cooperative business plan as described in section 393.110, to condemn property for purposes of constructing an electric plant subject to a certificate of public convenience and necessity under subsection 1 of section 393.170 shall not extend to the construction of a merchant transmission line with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission negotiated rate authority unless such line has a substation or converter station located in Missouri which is capable of delivering an amount of its electrical capacity to electrical customers in this state that is greater than or equal to the proportionate number of miles of the line that passes through the state. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to applications filed pursuant to section 393.170 prior to August 28, 2022.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1504, A.L. 1978 H.B. 1634, A.L. 1983 S.B. 44 & 45 merged with S.B. 144, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1070, A.L. 1994 S.B. 709, A.L. 2012 S.B. 628 merged with S.B. 636, A.L. 2022 H.B. 2005 merged with S.B. 820)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 1430; 1919 § 1791; 1909 § 2360

(1976) Held, in inverse condemnation suit venue is in county where all or part of land is located and not where principal office of highway commission is located. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Swink (Mo.), 537 S.W.2d 556.

(1981) Power of eminent domain includes right to survey in anticipation of and preparation for condemnation. State ex. rel. Rhodes v. Crouch (Mo.), 621 S.W.2d 47.

(1989) To satisfy the requirements of this section, the condemnors' evidence must show that a valid offer was made and rejected. (Mo.App.) Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Com'n v. Pinnell, 774 S.W.2d 528.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2023 · leading case: Osage Water Co. v. Miller Cnty. Water Auth., Inc., 950 S.W.2d 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Osage Water Co. v. Miller Cnty. Water Auth., Inc., 950 S.W.2d 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 28× “Plaintiff raises two points of trial court error in denying its condemnation petition: (1) in determining that Plaintiff is subject to § 523.010, the general statute governing condemnation proceedings, and in determining that Defendant was a "public utility" and therefore not…”

State Ex Rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 12× “The court said, [T]o satisfy the statutory requirements of § 523.010 RSMo the condemners' evidence must show that a valid offer was made by one party, usually the condemner, and rejected by the other.”

The Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Sherrell Constr., Inc., 476 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “, sections 523.010 to 523.215 (governing condemnation proceedings); sections 88.”

City of Columbia v. Baurichter, 713 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 12× “However, unless the city charter explicitly provides to the contrary, the city is required to follow the general condemnation requirements set forth in § 523.010, RSMo Cum.Supp.1986 and Rule 86.”

State Ex Rel. Rhodes v. Crouch, 621 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. 1981). · cites it 6× “[1] KAMO is a rural electric cooperative as defined in Chapter 394, RSMo 1978. Section 394.080(11) grants rural electric cooperatives the power of eminent domain "in the manner provided .”

State Ex Rel. Weatherby Advert. Co. v. Conley, 527 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1975). · cites it 10× “Section 523.010 of that chapter `* * * authorizes the filing of condemnation proceedings only in such cases where the condemnor "and the owners cannot agree upon the proper compensation to be paid.”

Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Brandstetter, 263 S.W.2d 880 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 12× “787, our Supreme Court said: “* * * the basic fact is that it is the corporate entity, the Shell Pipe Line Corporation, that has been invested with the right to exercise the power of eminent domain Section 523.010 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. By reason of that fact the condemnation…”

State ex rel. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n v. Rantz, 43 S.W.3d 436 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “The supreme court held this was not error; that the power company’s offer to the husband met the statutory requirement that the landowners and the condemning authority must be shown to be unable to agree upon proper compensation for the land sought in order to proceed with…”

State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Pinkley, 474 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 10× “The first issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying condemnation for the reason that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Commission and the owners of the lands sought to be condemned could not “ * * * agree upon the proper compensation to be paid, *…”

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Newingham, 386 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 12× “such corporation may apply * * * by petition setting forth the general directions in which it is desired to construct their [utility including telephone line] * * * pipe line or gas line over or underneath the surface of such lands, * * and praying the appointment of * * *…”

Kostman v. Pine Lawn Bank & Trust Co., 540 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. 1976). · cites it 6× “Then, significantly, the court stated at 885: "Thus on four distinct occasions in Missouri judicial comments have been made, although not directly necessary, to the effect that Section 523.010 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. has granted a substantive right of condemnation to pipe line…”

Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Brandstetter, 254 S.W.2d 636 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 7× “Appellants’ contention is that Section 523.010, RSMo, 1949, does not authorize pipe line companies to institute condemnation proceedings.”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 523.010(1) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Lynch, 297 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. 1956).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 523.010(3) — 1 case

Seliga Shoe Stores, Inc. v. City of Maplewood, 558 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

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.