Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.028

Legal defense of members of governmental bodies, when

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

610.028. Legal defense of members of governmental bodies, when — written policy on release of information required — persons reporting violations exempt from liability and discipline. — 1. Any public governmental body may provide for the legal defense of any member charged with a violation of sections 610.010 to 610.030.

2. Each public governmental body shall provide a reasonable written policy in compliance with sections 610.010 to 610.030, open to public inspection, regarding the release of information on any meeting, record or vote and any member or employee of the public governmental body who complies with the written policy is not guilty of a violation of the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.030 or subject to civil liability for any act arising out of his adherence to the written policy of the agency.

3. No person who in good faith reports a violation of the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.030 is civilly liable for making such report, nor, if such person is an officer or employee of a public governmental body, may such person be demoted, fired, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for making such report.

--------

(L. 1982 H.B. 1253, A.L. 1987 S.B. 2, A.L. 2004 H.B. 1548)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1991–1998 · leading case: Spradlin v. City of Fulton

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Spradlin v. City of Fulton (1998) mo · cites it 4× “It is interesting that section 610.027.3 provides that fines, costs and fees may be assessed against "a member" of a public governmental body.”

Wolfskill v. Henderson (1991) moctapp · cites it 2× “Although this may not be the most “user friendly” procedure, the court believes it complies with the letter of § 610.028 in this case. Additionally, it is questionable that not providing such a written policy is a violation of the Sunshine Laws under § 610.”

State ex rel. Missouri Local Government Retirement System v. Bill (1996) moctapp “Bill argued, in addition to the other issues raised on appeal, that even if LAGERS was authorized to close records, it should not be able to deny access to the records requested because it failed to adopt a written policy exercising such statutory authority in violation of §…”

STATE EX REL. MO. LOC. GOVERN. v. Bill (1996) moctapp “[5] Bill argued, in addition to the other issues raised on appeal, that even if LAGERS was authorized to close records, it should not be able to deny access to the records requested because it failed to adopt a written policy exercising such statutory authority in violation of §…”

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.