536.140. Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals. — 1. The court shall hear the case without a jury and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4 of this section, shall hear it upon the petition and record filed as aforesaid.
2. The inquiry may extend to a determination of whether the action of the agency
(1) Is in violation of constitutional provisions;
(2) Is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;
(3) Is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record;
(4) Is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law;
(5) Is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial;
(6) Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable;
(7) Involves an abuse of discretion.
The scope of judicial review in all contested cases, whether or not subject to judicial review pursuant to sections
536.100 to 536.140, and in all cases in which judicial review of decisions of administrative officers or bodies, whether state or local, is now or may hereafter be provided by law, shall in all cases be at least as broad as the scope of judicial review provided for in this subsection.
3. In interpreting a state statute, rule, regulation, or other subregulatory document, a court or an officer hearing an administrative action shall not defer to a state agency's interpretation of such statute, rule, regulation, or other document, and shall interpret the meaning and effect de novo. In actions brought by or against a state agency, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer shall decide any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.
4. Wherever under this section or otherwise the court is entitled to weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, the court may hear and consider additional evidence if the court finds that such evidence in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency. Wherever the court is not entitled to weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, if the court finds that there is competent and material evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency, the court may remand the case to the agency with directions to reconsider the same in the light of such evidence. The court may in any case hear and consider evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or of unfairness by the agency, not shown in the record.
5. The court shall render judgment affirming, reversing, or modifying the agency's order, and may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's opinion and judgment, and may order the agency to take such further action as it may be proper to require; but the court shall not substitute its discretion for discretion legally vested in the agency, unless the court determines that the agency decision was arbitrary or capricious.
6. Appeals may be taken from the judgment of the court as in other civil cases.
Notes of Decisions
Ross v. Robb, 651 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 76× “114, RSMo 1978 was adequately raised but dissent as to that part which construes § 536.140, RSMo 1978 as limiting circuit and appellate court review of administrative decisions to matters raised in the petition for review.”
Fleming Foods of Missouri, Inc. v. Runyan, 634 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 14× “2d 590 , and the scope of our *185 review is limited by § 536.140, RSMo 1978. We are to determine in the first instance if the Director's findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc.”
State Bd. of Reg. Ex Rel. Healing Arts v. Finch, 514 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 30× “More precisely, reference is made to Section 536.140, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. (a section of what is commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act), Sections 161.”
Kimble v. Worth Cnty. R-III Bd. of Educ., 669 S.W.2d 949 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 12× “120(2), RSMo 1978, provides that an appeal from the decision of the Board shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 536.”
TCF, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 402 S.W.3d 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Louis pursuant to Section 536.140, RSMo 2000. In its petition for review, TCF argued that Judge Walsh’s decision revoking its liquor license was arbitrary, capricious, and unauthorized by law in that Judge Walsh had erred in calculating the number of eligible persons within the…”
BBCB, LLC v. City of Indep., 201 S.W.3d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “In Point I, it claims that the trial court erred in determining that it was not entitled to a contested hearing before both the City’s LL Officer and city council and conducting, in accordance with § 536.140, a non-contested case review of the City’s revocation of its liquor…”
Perez v. Webb, 533 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 11× “Thus, the court reasoned the section was unconstitutional as clothing the administrative agency with arbitrary and undefined discretion.”
Pearman v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 48 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “5, the General Assembly has instructed that judicial review must be in “accordance with the provisions of section 536.140, RSMo[.]” Therefore, § 536.”
Kostman v. Pine Lawn Bank & Trust Co., 540 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 12× “With reference to appeals from the circuit court level to the appellate court level, subparagraph 6 of Section 536.140, RSMo 1969, also a part of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that `appeals may be taken from the judgment of the court as in other civil cases.”
Midstate Oil Co. v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights, 679 S.W.2d 842 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 5× “Section 536.140 of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act directs that the circuit court shall examine the record to determine whether the decision of the agency is supported by competent and substantial evidence.”
Evangelical Ret. Homes of Greater St. Louis, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Evangelical's first argument, that the circuit court erred in applying the wrong standard of review, is not supported by the definitive role of the reviewing court under § 536.140, RSMo 1978. Under that section, the circuit court's affirmance of an administrative decision or…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(1) — 1 case
Ross v. Robb, 651 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“114, RSMo 1978 was adequately raised but dissent as to that part which construes § 536.140, RSMo 1978 as limiting circuit and appellate court review of administrative decisions to matters raised in the petition for review.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(2) — 15 cases
Fleming Foods of Missouri, Inc. v. Runyan, 634 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. 1982).
“2d 590 , and the scope of our *185 review is limited by § 536.140, RSMo 1978. We are to determine in the first instance if the Director's findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(2)(1) — 2 cases
Ross v. Robb, 651 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“114, RSMo 1978 was adequately raised but dissent as to that part which construes § 536.140, RSMo 1978 as limiting circuit and appellate court review of administrative decisions to matters raised in the petition for review.”
Perez v. Webb, 533 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
“Thus, the court reasoned the section was unconstitutional as clothing the administrative agency with arbitrary and undefined discretion.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(2)(3) — 3 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(2)(4) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(3) — 7 cases
Kimble v. Worth Cnty. R-III Bd. of Educ., 669 S.W.2d 949 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
“120(2), RSMo 1978, provides that an appeal from the decision of the Board shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 536.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(4) — 8 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(5) — 6 cases
State Bd. of Reg. Ex Rel. Healing Arts v. Finch, 514 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).
“More precisely, reference is made to Section 536.140, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. (a section of what is commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act), Sections 161.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(6) — 3 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140(8) — 1 case
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.