536.130. Record on judicial review. — 1. Within thirty days after the filing of the petition or within such further time as the court may allow, the record before the agency shall be filed in the reviewing court. Such record shall consist of any one of the following:
(1) Such parts of the record, proceedings and evidence before the agency as the parties by written stipulation may agree upon;
(2) An agreed statement of the case, agreed to by all parties and approved as correct by the agency;
(3) A complete transcript of the entire record, proceedings and evidence before the agency. Evidence may be stated in either question and answer or narrative form. Documents may be abridged by omitting irrelevant and formal parts thereof. Any matter not essential to the decision of the questions presented by the petition may be omitted. The decision, order and findings of fact and conclusions of law shall in every case be included.
2. The record filed in the reviewing court shall be properly certified by the agency, and shall be typewritten, mimeographed, printed, or otherwise suitably reproduced. In any case where papers, documents or exhibits are to be made a part of the record in the reviewing court, the originals of all or any part thereof, or photostatic or other copies which may have been substituted therefor, may, if the agency permits, be sent to the reviewing court instead of having the same copied into the record.
3. In any case where any party fails or refuses to agree to the correctness of a record, the agency shall decide as to its correctness and certify the record accordingly. If any party shall be put to additional expense by reason of the failure of another party to agree to a proper shortening of the record, the court may tax the amount of such additional expense against the offending party as costs.
4. The record to be filed in the reviewing court shall be filed by the plaintiff, or at the request of the plaintiff shall be transmitted by the agency directly to the clerk of the reviewing court and by him filed; provided, that when original documents are to be sent to the reviewing court they shall be transmitted by the agency directly, as aforesaid. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections of or additions to the record.
Notes of Decisions
City of Richmond v. Suddarth, 120 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 20× “Suddarth had not filed a copy of the record with the court, within thirty days of the filing of any of these motions, as required by Section 536.130. 2 The City moved to dismiss his motions for, among other reasons, failure to timely file a copy of the administrative record.”
Moore v. Missouri Dental Bd., 311 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “The Board’s certified record, assimilated for submission to the trial court as required by section 536.130, and then included by Moore as a part of the Record on Appeal, is very brief.”
City of Kansas City v. Jordan, 174 S.W.3d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “140, RSMo, if a proper record as defined in section 536.130, RSMo, is maintained of the hearing provided by subsection 4 of section 67.”
Vette v. Dir. of Revenue, 99 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “In its Amended Order and Judgment dated August 21, 2001, the circuit court held that, under section 536.130, the director had thirty days to file her answer and the agency’s record, and the thirty days began to run when the director received the petition on February 16, 2001.”
Edmonds v. McNeal, 596 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. 1980).
· cites it 2× “5, § 18 and § 536.130 et seq., RSMo. In this case, the reviewing court must determine whether the action of the Board is supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the whole record.”
State v. Superior Mfg., 373 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Accordingly, the requirements of section 536.130 related to judicial review of an administrative proceeding are applicable to the Grosses’ motions.”
Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “By Section 536.130, RSMo. 1969, plaintiffs’ right to judicial review required them to file a transcript of the commission’s proceedings by December 12,1975, i.”
Tonkin v. Jackson Cnty. Merit Sys. Com'n, 599 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “The action of the circuit court in admitting the ordinances and the Herron affidavit cannot be justified upon the basis of § 536.130(4) RSMo 1978 and Rule 100.-06(d).”
Moses v. Carnahan, 186 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Respondents filed a motion, which we took with the case, to strike certain portions of Appellants’ amended brief and the Appendix thereto since they refer to or contain certain evidentiary materials (in particular, a purported e-mail exchange between counsel for Appellants and a…”
Knapp v. Missouri Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys., 738 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “110 and had failed to file a transcript of the proceedings as required by § 536.130. On November 26 the trial court sustained the city’s motion and entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s amended petition with prejudice.”
State ex rel. Maddox v. Garner, 459 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 6× “” 5 Section 536.130, subd. 1 [Rule 100.06(a)] requires that: “Within thirty days after the filing of the petition [for judicial review] or within such further time as the court may allow, the record before the agency shall be filed in the reviewing court.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.130(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.130(4) — 2 cases
Tonkin v. Jackson Cnty. Merit Sys. Com'n, 599 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
“The action of the circuit court in admitting the ordinances and the Herron affidavit cannot be justified upon the basis of § 536.130(4) RSMo 1978 and Rule 100.-06(d).”
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.