Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 531
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 531.050 (2026)

Judgment

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

  531.050.  Judgment. — In case any person, against whom any such information in the nature of a quo warranto shall be prosecuted, shall be adjudged guilty of any usurpation of, or intrusion into, or unlawfully holding and executing any office or franchise, it may be lawful for the court as well to give judgment of ouster against such person from any of the said offices or franchises, as to fine such person for his usurpation of, intruding into or unlawfully holding and executing any such office or franchise, and to give judgment that the relator in such information named shall recover his costs of such prosecution; and if judgment shall be given for the defendant in such information, he shall recover his costs against such relator.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1786)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 1622; 1919 § 2070; 1909 § 2635

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1964–2021 · leading case: United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Danforth, 394 F. Supp. 774 (W.D. Mo. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Danforth, 394 F. Supp. 774 (W.D. Mo. 1975). · cites it 3× “, constitutes an act in violation of your corporate charter and subjects the charter to an action in Quo Warranto pursuant to Section 531.050, RSMo. You are hereby informed per this letter and attachments.”
State of Missouri ex inf. Charles J. Dykhouse, Boone Cnty. Couns. in his Off. Capacity v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 509 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “nclude the majority of the circuit and associate circuit judges of the circuit in which that person is employed, the suit may proceed without the approval or participation of the attorney general or any prosecuting attorney, and for all purposes under this chapter, such judges…”
State v. King, 379 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. 1964). · cites it 2× “We hold that in any event the acts of the Prosecuting Attorney of Phelps County were valid, pending formal ouster proceedings and an actual judgment of ouster. It is not claimed that there ever were any such proceedings, and the point made here is denied.”
State ex rel. Nixon v. Belt, 873 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See § 531.050, RSMo 1986 (providing that a successful relator in quo warranto “shall recover his costs of such prosecution.”
State ex inf. Danforth v. Orton, 465 S.W.2d 618 (Mo. 1971). “Additionally, although not assessed, respondent became subject to being fined as provided for in § 531.050 against usurpers, intruders, and those holding office unlawfully.”
State Ex Inf. Danforth v. Dale Curteman, Inc., 480 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. 1972). “counterclaim, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a new judgment finding the issues on the information for State of Missouri and re-lators and against respondents; finding that the activities and practices of respondents and of the employees of the Curteman…”
Karla L. Allsberry, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Patrick S. Flynn, in his Individual Capacity (Mo. Ct. App. 2021). “In re Voorhees, 739 7 An officeholder may be removed upon being “adjudged guilty of any usurpation of, or intrusion into, or unlawfully holding and executing” the office.”
Karla K. Allsberry, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Patrick S. Flynn, in his individual capacity, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. (Mo. 2021). “§ 531.050; see also State ex inf. McCulloch v.”
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.