Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.050 (2026)

Declaratory judgments respecting the validity of rules

✓ current as of May 2026

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

536.050. Declaratory judgments respecting the validity of rules — fees and expenses — standing, intervention by general assembly. — 1. The power of the courts of this state to render declaratory judgments shall extend to declaratory judgments respecting the validity of rules, or of threatened applications thereof, and such suits may be maintained against agencies whether or not the plaintiff has first requested the agency to pass upon the question presented. The venue of such suits against agencies shall, at the option of the plaintiff, be in the circuit court of Cole County, or in the county of the plaintiff's residence, or if the plaintiff is a corporation, domestic or foreign, having a registered office or business office in this state, in the county of such registered office or business office. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as a limitation on the declaratory or other relief which the courts might grant in the absence of this section.

2. Any person bringing an action under subsection 1 of this section shall not be required to exhaust any administrative remedy if the court determines that:

(1) The administrative agency has no authority to grant the relief sought or the administrative remedy is otherwise inadequate; or

(2) The only issue presented for adjudication is a constitutional issue or other question of law; or

(3) Requiring the person to exhaust any administrative remedy would result in undue prejudice because the person may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of the claim. Provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any matter covered by chapters 288, 302, and 303; or

(4) The party bringing the action is a small business claiming a material violation of section 536.300 or 536.303^* by the state agency requiring the small business impact statement for the amendment or rule.

3. A nonstate party who prevails in an action brought pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall be awarded reasonable fees and expenses, as defined in section 536.085, incurred by that party in the action.

4. A nonstate party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of a final disposition of an action brought pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, submit to the court which rendered the final disposition or judgment an application which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award pursuant to this section, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses are computed.

5. A prevailing nonstate party in an agency proceeding shall submit an application for fees and expenses to the court before which the party prevailed. The filing of an application shall not stay the time for appealing the merits of a case. When the state appeals the underlying merits of an adversary proceeding, no decision on the application for fees and other expenses in connection with that adversary proceeding shall be made pursuant to this section until a final and unreviewable decision is rendered by the court on the appeal or until the underlying merits of the case have been finally determined pursuant to the appeal.

6. The court may either reduce the amount to be awarded or deny any award, to the extent that the prevailing nonstate party during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.

7. The decision of a court on the application for reasonable fees and expenses shall be in writing, separate from the judgment or order of the court which determined the prevailing party, and shall include written findings and conclusions and the reason or basis therefor. The decision of a court on the application for fees and other expenses shall be final, subject respectively to appeal or judicial review.

8. If a party or the state is dissatisfied with a determination of fees and other expenses made in an action brought pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, that party or the state may, within the time permitted by law, appeal that order or judgment to the appellate court having jurisdiction to review the merits of that order or judgment. The appellate court's determination shall be based solely on the record made before the court below. The court may modify, reverse or reverse and remand the determination of fees and other expenses if the court finds that the award or failure to make an award of fees and other expenses, or the calculation of the amount of the award, was arbitrary and capricious, was unreasonable, was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, or was made contrary to law or in excess of the court's jurisdiction. Awards made pursuant to this section shall be payable from amounts appropriated therefor. The state agency against which the award was made shall request an appropriation to pay for the award.

9. The general assembly or its designee shall have standing, in law or equity, to intervene in any existing action involving such challenge to agency action. Unless otherwise provided by resolution, the general assembly's designee is the joint committee on administrative rules who may, upon a concurrence of a majority of the committee's members, intervene in the name of the members of the committee in their representative capacity. Nothing in this section shall confer upon the committee any duty to so act or intervene.

--------

(L. 1945 p. 1504 § 5, A.L. 1978 S.B. 661, A.L. 1996 S.B. 720, A.L. 1997 H.B. 850, A.L. 2005 H.B. 576)

*Section 536.303 was repealed by S.B. 894 & 825, 2024.

(1982) Statutory provisions which purport to authorize the Administrative Hearing Commission to render declaratory judgments are unconstitutional as violative of Section 1, Article V of the Missouri Constitution. State Tax Commission v. Administrative Hearing Commission (Mo.banc), 641 S.W.2d 69.

(1993) Where action is based on specific facts involving named entities and is a challenge to an agency decision, jurisdiction to challenged decision is vested in the administrative hearing commission under section 208.156, RSMo. Because action challenged an agency decision and not an agency rule, this section does not allow a declaratory judgment action to be brought in the circuit court. Missouri Health Care Association, EBG III, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Social Services, 851 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. App. W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: United Pharmacal Co. of Missouri v. Missouri Bd. of Pharmacy, 159 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United Pharmacal Co. of Missouri v. Missouri Bd. of Pharmacy, 159 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 22× “The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits for Pharmacal. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer.”

Missouri Soybean Ass'n v. Missouri Clean Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “053, RSMo 2000, provides that Any person who is or may be aggrieved by any rule promulgated by a state agency shall have standing to challenge any rule promulgated by a state agency and may bring such an action pursuant to the provisions of section 536.050. (Emphasis added.)…”

State Tax Comm'n v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n, 641 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 6× “— The administrative hearing commission shall conduct hearings, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue decisions in those cases involving complaints filed pursuant to the provisions of section 536.050, RSMo. The Administrative Hearing Commission found that…”

Missouri Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. State Bd. of Reg., 343 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 7× “Under section 536.050, RSMo Supp.2005, Missouri courts are granted the power to render declaratory judgments respecting the validity of rules.”

Borges v. Missouri Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt. Fund, 358 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “The Fund filed a motion for summary-judgment, arguing that the petitioners lacked standing under sections 536.050 and 536.053 3 in that Petitioners were not aggrieved by the promulgation of a rule because the Fund had not promulgated a rule.”

Missourians for Separation of Church & State v. Robertson, 592 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “02(c) and § 536.050], The petition of the plaintiffs, therefore, implicitly engages the power of a court to render declaratory judgment on the validity of a rule or the threatened application of a rule under Rule 87.”

Smith v. State, 152 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 4× “The SLEF provides coverage for lawsuits brought against: (1) The state of Missouri, or any agency of the state, pursuant to section 536.050 or 536.087 or section 537.”

Missouri Bankers Ass'n v. Dir. of the Missouri Div. of Credit Unions, 126 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 6× “That section provides: Any person who is or may be aggrieved by any rule promulgated by a state agency shall have standing to challenge any rule promulgated by a state agency and may bring such action pursuant to the provisions of section 536.050. Such person shall not be…”

Turner v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 349 S.W.3d 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Analysis Due Process Claim Plaintiffs’ petition sought a declaratory judgment pursuant to section 536.050. Section 536.050.1 provides, inter alia: The power of the courts of this state to render declaratory judgments shall extend to declaratory judgments respecting the validity…”

Israel Ivan Ramirez v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., Child.'s Div., 501 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 32× “tment of Social Services, Children’s Division (“Division”) appeals from a trial court judgment which held that Israel Ivan Ramirez (“Ramirez”) did not sexually abuse a student, and which declared that the Division’s definition of “sexual maltreatment” in its Child Welfare Manual…”

Kansas Ass'n of Private Investigators v. Mulvihill, 35 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “Thus, the Board argues either that § 536.050.1 does not apply and the Investigators should have exhausted their administrative remedies, or alternatively that the trial court was only able to award prospective relief because the challenge is to the validity of a rule.”

McNeil-Terry v. Roling, 142 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees incurred on appeal pursuant to section 536.050 RSMo 2000 is denied without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to pursue the motion before the trial court where a motion for attorneys’ fees at trial is pending.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.050(1) — 1 case

State ex rel. Gladfelter v. Lewis, 595 S.W.2d 788 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.050(2) — 1 case

State Tax Comm'n v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n, 641 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1982). “— The administrative hearing commission shall conduct hearings, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue decisions in those cases involving complaints filed pursuant to the provisions of section 536.050, RSMo. The Administrative Hearing Commission found that…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.050(3) — 1 case

V.M.B. v. Missouri Dental Bd., 74 S.W.3d 836 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

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.