621.189. Judicial review. — Final decisions of the administrative hearing commission in cases arising pursuant to the provisions of section 621.050 shall be subject to review pursuant to a petition for review to be filed in the court of appeals in the district in which the hearing, or any part thereof, is held or, where constitutionally required or ordered by transfer, to the supreme court, and by delivery of copies of the petition to each party of record, within thirty days after the mailing or delivery of the final decision and notice thereof in such a case. Review under this section shall be exclusive, and decisions of the administrative hearing commission reviewable pursuant to this section shall not be reviewable in any other proceeding, and no other official or court shall have power to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise except pursuant to the provisions of this section. The party seeking review shall be responsible for the filing of the transcript and record of all proceedings before the administrative hearing commission in the case with the appropriate court of appeals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case:
Woodman v. Dir. of Revenue, 8 S.W.3d 154 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
Woodman v. Dir. of Revenue, 8 S.W.3d 154 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 15× “After determining the Commission had the power to set aside dismissals, the Eleven Star court discussed the time limit within which to make such a set aside in light of § 621.189, the statute governing appeals from the Commission to a court of appeals.”
Am. Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 496 (Mo. 1999).
· cites it 3× “V, section 3 and section 18; section 621.189, RSMo 1994. We affirm the commission’s decision in part and reverse in part and hold that utility services purchased for nursing home residents are exempt from sales tax for the entire year of 1994.”
Balloons Over the Rainbow, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 427 S.W.3d 815 (Mo. 2014).
· cites it 2× “*820 Standard of Review This Court reviews the decision of the AHC pursuant to section 621.189, which directs this Court to uphold the AHC’s decision if it is “authorized by law and supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the record as a whole unless clearly…”
Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “In addition, § 621.189, RSMo Supp.1984 provides that final decisions entered by the Administrative Hearing Commission which are entered pursuant to § 621.”
Wright v. Dir. of Revenue, 397 S.W.3d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 7× “1, and section 621.189, RSMo Cum.Supp.2001, provide a procedure for appealing “any finding, order, decision, assessment or additional assessment” of the Director — first to the Administrative Hearing Commission and then to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.”
J.C. Nichols Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 796 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 3× “V, §§ 3 and 18, Section 621.189, RSMo 1986. The decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission is affirmed.”
801 Skinker Boulevard Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 395 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2013).
· cites it 2× “On February 7, 2012, the Commission rendered its opinion, denying Taxpayers’ request for a refund of sales tax, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.”
Street v. Dir. of Revenue, 361 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As a result, the AHC determined that the director properly assessed Greene County sales taxes against Mr. Street. Mr.”
Paulson v. Missouri Dep't of Revenue, 961 S.W.2d 63 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Craig Paulson filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to Section 621.189 RSMo. 1994 from the determination of the Administrative Hearing Commission that Appellant was a resident of Missouri during 1994 and from the Commission’s determination that Appellant was therefore…”
Cass Cnty. v. Dir. of Revenue, 550 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. 2018).
“See § 621.189. Nevertheless, this Court, on its own motion, grants discretionary transfer of the case pursuant to Rule 83.”
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.