Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025 (2026)
Electronic transmission of messages relating to public business, requirements
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
610.025. Electronic transmission of messages relating to public business, requirements. — Any member of a public governmental body who transmits any message relating to public business by electronic means shall also concurrently transmit that message to either the member's public office computer or the custodian of records in the same format. The provisions of this section shall only apply to messages sent to two or more members of that body so that, when counting the sender, a majority of the body's members are copied. Any such message received by the custodian or at the member's office computer shall be a public record subject to the exceptions of section 610.021.
--------
(L. 2004 S.B. 1020, et al.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “The question to be answered is whether the exemptions from disclosure authorized in § 610.025 1 are limited in any way as to time.”
Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Appellants characterize entries such as “study security guard documents,” “check on drug inquiries on police physicals,” and “Review ordinance on city coordinator” as personal notes of the attorney which fall within an enumerated exception under § 610.025 RSMo 1986. These…”
Hudson v. Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 578 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “The first issue relates to the interpretation of the language of § 610.025 RSMo Supp.1975, viz., “meetings relating to the hiring, firing, or promotion of personnel of a public governmental body may be a closed meeting, closed record, or closed vote.”
Hyde v. City of Columbia, 637 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “015] — sub *259 ject only to the enumerated exceptions of § 610.025. 9 The integral Law opens to the public— even without an interest to vindicate — the meetings and records of those entrusted with the public business.”
Oregon Cnty. R-IV Sch. Dist. v. LeMon, 739 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “City of Columbia, supra, at 259, although certain records may be closed under § 610.025, and other records are not open to the public by reason of the language “except as otherwise provided by law,” contained in § 610.”
Remington v. City of Boonville, 701 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). “” (emphasis added) During the time the above statutory definition of “Public Governmental Body” prevailed, § 610.025, RSMo 1978, captioned “Closed meetings authorized, when”, included [subparagraph (1)] the following specific exemption: “Any meeting, record, or vote of judges,…”
Tribune Publ'g Co. v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 661 S.W.2d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “Section 610.025 authorizes closed meetings by and closed records of public governmental bodies in five designated instances, none of which are applicable under the allegations in Tribune’s petition.”
State ex rel. St. Louis Cnty. v. Block, 622 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “Louis County (relator) moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the information, documents and records sought are inadmissible as evidence and are privileged because the files of the Bureau of Internal Affairs are confidential and closed as a matter of law pursuant to §…”
Champ v. Poelker, 755 S.W.2d 383 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “In order to exclude the public, a governmental body must give notice to the public and state the “reason for holding the closed session by reference to the specific exemption allowed under the provisions of section 610.025.” § 610.020.6, RSMo 1986.”
Jennings v. City of Kansas City, 812 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). “He has not shown that the city council passed the resolution in a closed session, held under § 610.025, which permits governmental bodies to meet in closed session under certain circumstances.”
Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). “” § 610.025(1) RSMo 1986. The Board argues the use in the amendment of the disjunctive “confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body .”
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Pub. Utils. of City of Springfield v. Crow, 592 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “015, RSMo 1978, in the following language: (emphasis is ours) " Except as provided in section 610.025, and except as otherwise provided by law, all public votes shall be recorded, any if a roll call is taken, as to attribute each `yea' and `nay' vote, or abstinence if not…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025(1) — 3 cases
Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Appellants characterize entries such as “study security guard documents,” “check on drug inquiries on police physicals,” and “Review ordinance on city coordinator” as personal notes of the attorney which fall within an enumerated exception under § 610.025 RSMo 1986. These…”
Remington v. City of Boonville, 701 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). “” (emphasis added) During the time the above statutory definition of “Public Governmental Body” prevailed, § 610.025, RSMo 1978, captioned “Closed meetings authorized, when”, included [subparagraph (1)] the following specific exemption: “Any meeting, record, or vote of judges,…”
Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). “” § 610.025(1) RSMo 1986. The Board argues the use in the amendment of the disjunctive “confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body .”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025(2) — 1 case
Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “The question to be answered is whether the exemptions from disclosure authorized in § 610.025 1 are limited in any way as to time.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025(3) — 1 case
Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Appellants characterize entries such as “study security guard documents,” “check on drug inquiries on police physicals,” and “Review ordinance on city coordinator” as personal notes of the attorney which fall within an enumerated exception under § 610.025 RSMo 1986. These…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025(4) — 7 cases
Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “The question to be answered is whether the exemptions from disclosure authorized in § 610.025 1 are limited in any way as to time.”
Hudson v. Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 578 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “The first issue relates to the interpretation of the language of § 610.025 RSMo Supp.1975, viz., “meetings relating to the hiring, firing, or promotion of personnel of a public governmental body may be a closed meeting, closed record, or closed vote.”
Hyde v. City of Columbia, 637 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “015] — sub *259 ject only to the enumerated exceptions of § 610.025. 9 The integral Law opens to the public— even without an interest to vindicate — the meetings and records of those entrusted with the public business.”
State ex rel. St. Louis Cnty. v. Block, 622 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “Louis County (relator) moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the information, documents and records sought are inadmissible as evidence and are privileged because the files of the Bureau of Internal Affairs are confidential and closed as a matter of law pursuant to §…”
Wolfskill v. Henderson, 823 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.025(5) — 1 case
Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Appellants characterize entries such as “study security guard documents,” “check on drug inquiries on police physicals,” and “Review ordinance on city coordinator” as personal notes of the attorney which fall within an enumerated exception under § 610.025 RSMo 1986. These…”
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.