Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.027 (2026)

Violations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

610.027. Violations — remedies, procedure, penalty, purposeful violations — validity of actions by governing bodies in violation — governmental bodies may seek interpretation of law, attorney general to provide. — 1. The remedies provided by this section against public governmental bodies shall be in addition to those provided by any other provision of law. Any aggrieved person, taxpayer to, or citizen of, this state, or the attorney general or prosecuting attorney, may seek judicial enforcement of the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026. Suits to enforce sections 610.010 to 610.026 shall be brought in the circuit court for the county in which the public governmental body has its principal place of business. Upon service of a summons, petition, complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim in a civil action brought to enforce the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.026, the custodian of the public record that is the subject matter of such civil action shall not transfer custody, alter, destroy, or otherwise dispose of the public record sought to be inspected and examined, notwithstanding the applicability of an exemption pursuant to section 610.021 or the assertion that the requested record is not a public record until the court directs otherwise.

2. Once a party seeking judicial enforcement of sections 610.010 to 610.026 demonstrates to the court that the body in question is subject to the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026 and has held a closed meeting, record or vote, the burden of persuasion shall be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of sections 610.010 to 610.026.

3. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has knowingly violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars. If the court finds that there is a knowing violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, the court may order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.

4. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body has purposely violated sections 610.010 to 610.026, the public governmental body or the member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to five thousand dollars. If the court finds that there was a purposeful violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, then the court shall order the payment by such body or member of all costs and reasonable attorney fees to any party successfully establishing such a violation. The court shall determine the amount of the penalty by taking into account the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and whether the public governmental body or member of a public governmental body has violated sections 610.010 to 610.026 previously.

5. Upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body has violated any provision of sections 610.010 to 610.026, a court shall void any action taken in violation of sections 610.010 to 610.026, if the court finds under the facts of the particular case that the public interest in the enforcement of the policy of sections 610.010 to 610.026 outweighs the public interest in sustaining the validity of the action taken in the closed meeting, record or vote. Suit for enforcement shall be brought within one year from which the violation is ascertainable and in no event shall it be brought later than two years after the violation. This subsection shall not apply to an action taken regarding the issuance of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness of a public governmental body if a public hearing, election or public sale has been held regarding the bonds or evidence of indebtedness.

6. A public governmental body which is in doubt about the legality of closing a particular meeting, record or vote may bring suit at the expense of that public governmental body in the circuit court of the county of the public governmental body's principal place of business to ascertain the propriety of any such action, or seek a formal opinion of the attorney general or an attorney for the governmental body.

--------

(L. 1982 H.B. 1253, A.L. 1987 S.B. 2, A.L. 1990 H.B. 1395 & 1448, A.L. 1998 H.B. 1095, A.L. 2004 S.B. 1020, et al.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Rachal Laut, f/k/a Rachal Govro, & John M. Soellner v. City of Arnold, 491 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rachal Laut, f/k/a Rachal Govro, & John M. Soellner v. City of Arnold, 491 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 66× “) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Honorable Gary Kramer, Judge Opinion issued June 28, 2016 Plaintiffs Rachal Laut and John Soellner appeal the trial court’s judgment that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a civil penalty or attorney’s fees under section 610.027 1…”

Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1998). · cites it 24× “Section 610.027 permits a public governmental body that has doubts about the legality of closing a public meeting or record or vote to request an attorney general's opinion, and the statute likewise empowers an action for enforcement to be brought by the attorney general or…”

Steve Cox v. City of Chillicothe & Rick Knouse, 575 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 20× “Discussion The purpose of the Sunshine Law is to insure "that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law.”

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Found. v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 504 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15× “Pfeiffer, Chief Judge The Missouri Department of Corrections (“Department”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri (“trial court”), in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri (“ACLU”) which imposed a $500 penalty against the Department…”

Champ v. Poelker, 755 S.W.2d 383 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “3 Appellants request the court to declare the actions of the IDA and Convention Bureau void, enjoin both the IDA and the Convention Bureau from further violating Chapter 610, and fine the officers and directors of both corporations under section 610.027, RSMo 1986, for…”

Aaron M. Malin v. Cole Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 565 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “5 $24,070; the Prosecutor does not challenge the award of a section 610.027 civil penalty. Instead, on appeal, the Prosecutor only challenges the judgment’s order of the production of certain records responsive to the first category of records requested (drug task force…”

Petruska v. City of Kinloch, 559 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, the meaning of the terms "knowing" and "purposeful" set out in section 610.027 is a question of statutory interpretation, and so is a question of law.”

Glasgow Sch. Dist. v. Howard Cnty. Coroner, 572 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “01(b) cannot be invoked by the trial court in action brought to gain access to records under the Sunshine Law where claim for attorney fees under section 610.027 is still pending). The School District’s request for the imposition of statutory penalties and an award of attorney…”

Buckner v. Burnett, 908 S.W.2d 908 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “Section 610.027 provides the remedies for violations of Chapter 610.”

Foster v. Vill. of Brownington, 140 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “020 RSMo; they sought determination of their legal interest to the property on which gravel was spread as a result of the Town Board’s decision at the July 11, 1995, Board meeting; and they sought assessment of a penalty against the defendants as authorized by section 610.027…”

Kansas City Star Co. v. Shields, 771 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Section 610.027 covers violation of the Sunshine Law.”

Bray v. Lombardi, 516 S.W.3d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge Introduction George Lombardi, in his official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“the DOC”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri (“trial court”) in favor of Joan Bray which awarded attorney’s…”

Show all 56 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.027(1) — 2 cases

F.W. Disposal South, LLC v. St. Louis Cnty. Council, 266 S.W.3d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Wolfskill v. Henderson, 823 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.027(2) — 2 cases

Tuft v. City of St. Louis, 936 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.027(3) — 4 cases

Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1998). “Section 610.027 permits a public governmental body that has doubts about the legality of closing a public meeting or record or vote to request an attorney general's opinion, and the statute likewise empowers an action for enforcement to be brought by the attorney general or…”

Jones v. Hous. Auth. of Kansas City, 118 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Charlier v. Corum, 794 S.W.2d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

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.