536.080. Parties may file briefs — officials to hear or read evidence. — 1. In contested cases each party shall be entitled to present oral arguments or written briefs at or after the hearing which shall be heard or read by each official of the agency who renders or joins in rendering the final decision.
2. In contested cases, each official of an agency who renders or joins in rendering a final decision shall, prior to such final decision, either hear all the evidence, read the full record including all the evidence, or personally consider the portions of the record cited or referred to in the arguments or briefs. The parties to a contested case may by written stipulation or by oral stipulation in the record at a hearing waive compliance with the provisions of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Dunning v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 630 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 16× “The trial court in its judicial review reversed and remanded, finding that the decisions of the Board of Pharmacy and Administrative Hearing Commission were “unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.”
Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “The Highway Patrol cross-appeals from the circuit court's interlocutory order finding the patrol's first dismissal of Trooper Gamble not in accordance with §§ 536.080 and 536.090. [1] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the circuit court with directions.”
City of Eureka v. Litz, 658 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Earlier that day, plaintiffs brought a petition in the circuit court for a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, claiming that the Board of Aldermen had not heard all of the evidence or read the full record of the public hearing and was precluded by…”
T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 345 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 12× “That is because we are of the opinion, as contended by the company, that the commission’s purported decision did not constitute a valid decision for the reason that it was promulgated in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 536.080. 1 Section 138.240 (relating to the…”
Ruffin v. City of Clinton, 849 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “§ 536.080 RSMo 1986. 5 . We also note that Mr.”
State Ex Rel. Jackson Cnty. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 532 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 2× “To accomplish the same, and hopefully to avoid further delay in this matter, the trial court is directed to modify its "order of remand" to allow Commissioner Sprague ten days to certify to it that he had complied with § 536.080 at the time of denial of the motions for rehearing.”
Dittmeier v. Missouri Real Est. Comm'n, 316 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 4× “Section 536.080 provides: “Whenever in a contested case, all of the officials of the agency who are to render the final decision do not hear or read the evidence, such decision shall not be rendered by the agency until each party to the proceedings has been afforded an…”
Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. King, 778 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “1973), held that § 536.080, subd. 2, permits a commissioner to join in rendering a final decision if prior thereto he reads the full record, and since no rule demands that he be personally present to hear and observe the witnesses as they testify and procedural due process does…”
State ex rel. Fischer v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 645 S.W.2d 39 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “The Public Counsel objected that the order in this case failed to certify its compliance with Section 536.080 RSMo 1957 and Section 386.”
State Ex Rel. Rogers v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 995 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the Board argues that § 536.080 allows for agencies to make determinations on the record, as opposed to hearing the evidence in person, by providing that: 1.”
Ocvina v. Bd. of Adjustment, 402 S.W.3d 125 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “The only reference made to Section 536.080 before the Board was by counsel for the City, and consisted entirely of argument as to why Section 536.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.080(1) — 2 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.080(2) — 4 cases
Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
“The Highway Patrol cross-appeals from the circuit court's interlocutory order finding the patrol's first dismissal of Trooper Gamble not in accordance with §§ 536.080 and 536.090. [1] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the circuit court with directions.”
Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. King, 778 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
“1973), held that § 536.080, subd. 2, permits a commissioner to join in rendering a final decision if prior thereto he reads the full record, and since no rule demands that he be personally present to hear and observe the witnesses as they testify and procedural due process does…”
State Ex Rel. Rogers v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 995 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Finally, the Board argues that § 536.080 allows for agencies to make determinations on the record, as opposed to hearing the evidence in person, by providing that: 1.”
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.