Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 536

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.150

Review by injunction or original writ, when

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

  536.150.  Review by injunction or original writ, when — scope. — 1.  When any administrative officer or body existing under the constitution or by statute or by municipal charter or ordinance shall have rendered a decision which is not subject to administrative review, determining the legal rights, duties or privileges of any person, including the denial or revocation of a license, and there is no other provision for judicial inquiry into or review of such decision, such decision may be reviewed by suit for injunction, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or other appropriate action, and in any such review proceeding the court may determine the facts relevant to the question whether such person at the time of such decision was subject to such legal duty, or had such right, or was entitled to such privilege, and may hear such evidence on such question as may be properly adduced, and the court may determine whether such decision, in view of the facts as they appear to the court, is unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious or involves an abuse of discretion; and the court shall render judgment accordingly, and may order the administrative officer or body 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 such administrative officer or body, and in cases where the granting or withholding of a privilege is committed by law to the sole discretion of such administrative officer or body, such discretion lawfully exercised shall not be disturbed.

  2.  Nothing in this section shall apply to contested cases reviewable pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140.

  3.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair any power to take summary action lawfully vested in any such administrative officer or body, or to limit the jurisdiction of any court or the scope of any remedy available in the absence of this section.

­­--------

(L. 1953 p. 678 §§ 1, 2, 3)

(1972) Where county ordinance provided no appeal from ruling of Board of Building Appeals, relator was entitled to writ of certiorari to compel the board to certify a sufficiently complete record of proceedings of basis leading to board's decision including name and identity of witnesses and at least a summary of their testimony. State ex rel. Walmar Investment Co.  v. Armstrong (A.), 477 S.W.2d 730.

(1975) School district has no right to appeal decision of county board of equalization. State ex rel. St. Francois County School Dist. R-III v. Lalumondier (Mo.), 518 S.W.2d 638.

(1979) Mandamus was remedy when city council denied a liquor license under a municipal code when all conditions were met and was not a "contested" case. State ex rel. Keeven v. City of Hazelwood, et al. (A.), 585 S.W.2d 557.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 281 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Harold Lampley and Rene Frost v. The Missouri Commission on Human Rights and Alisa Warren
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harold Lampley and Rene Frost v. The Missouri Commission on Human Rights and Alisa Warren (2019) mo · cites it 64× “Blue Springs 1 The principal and concurring opinions correctly acknowledge our review of this matter is governed by §536.150, RSMo 2000, and Lampley and Frost concede in their supplemental briefing contested case review of the executive director's actions is unavailable.”
Kinzenbaw v. Director of Revenue (2001) mo · cites it 28× “Since there was no hearing (or "contest") at the agency, Kinzenbaw's case is "noncontested" and is thus governed by section 536.150. [4] *53 In the context of a driver's license, the pertinent portions of the statute say that "in any such review proceeding, the court may…”
State Ex Rel. Martin-Erb v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights (2002) mo · cites it 22× “This Court holds that the executive director’s “no probable cause” determination is reviewable under section 536.150 as a noncontested case for the limited purpose of determining whether she arbitrarily exercised or refused to exercise her statutory and regulatory duties in…”
Phipps v. School District of Kansas City (1982) moctapp · cites it 24× “The plaintiff Phipps sought judicial review under § 536.150, RSMo 1978 and Rule 100.08 of the administrative decision by the School District of Kansas City to terminate employment.”
Ard v. Shannon County Commission (2014) moctapp · cites it 19× “The Commission argues the suit was “unauthorized” because “petitions for judicial review are available in ‘contested cases’ only, and [Landowners] failed to utilize one of the lawsuits authorized by section 536.150 RSMo for noncontested cases .”
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. Civil Service Commission (2003) moctapp · cites it 23× “On October 24, 2002, relator filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” pursuant to section 536.150 RSMo (2000), requesting the circuit court to issue an order in mandamus directing the Commission to rescind its decision of October 17, 2002 that reinstated the lists.”
State ex rel. Robison v. Lindley-Myers (2018) mo · cites it 7× “Because the director retained her discretion to refuse Robison's license renewal even if Robison had pursued his administrative remedy, this is a non-contested case governed by § 536.150. Administrative remedies must be exhausted in non-contested cases Section 536.”
Strozewski v. City of Springfield (1994) mo · cites it 23× “1991), the majority finds no exhaustion requirement in § 536.150 that provides for judicial review of non-contested hearings.”
Borges v. Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund (2012) moctapp · cites it 12× “Whether Borges and Johnson had standing Borges and Johnson argue that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in that they had standing to maintain a declaratory judgment action under section 536.150. We disagree. a. Standing based on Chapter 536 We first note that…”
Long v. Bates County Memorial Hospital Board of Directors (1984) moctapp · cites it 30× “Appellants present three points, charging that the trial court erred in entering the permanent injunction, because (1) the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong scope of review to the Board's decision; (2) if § 536.150, RSMo 1978 is applicable, the trial court…”
State Ex Rel. Christian Health Care of Springfield, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services (2007) moctapp · cites it 13× “Whereas, § 536.150 governs judicial review by the circuit court of an uncontested ease.”
Furlong Companies v. City of Kansas City (2006) mo · cites it 6× “Section 536.150. 1 The city contends that the review should have been limited to the record before the city council because the proceeding was one in mandamus.”
Show all 281 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.150(1) — 6 cases
Karzin v. Collett (1978) moctapp
Strozewski v. City of Springfield (1994) mo “1991), the majority finds no exhaustion requirement in § 536.150 that provides for judicial review of non-contested hearings.”
State Ex Rel. Missouri State Board of Pharmacy v. Administrative Hearing Commission (2007) moctapp
Goodner v. Ford (1980) moctapp
State ex rel. Koster v. Morningland of Ozarks, LLC (2012) moctapp
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.150(2) — 2 cases
Moore v. Damos (1972) moctapp
State Ex Rel. Missouri State Board of Pharmacy v. Administrative Hearing Commission (2007) moctapp
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.150(3) — 1 case
Strozewski v. City of Springfield (1994) mo “1991), the majority finds no exhaustion requirement in § 536.150 that provides for judicial review of non-contested hearings.”
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.