Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 71
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 71.675 (2026)

No class action suits permitted for enforcement or collection of business license taxes imposed on telecommunications companies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  71.675.  No class action suits permitted for enforcement or collection of business license taxes imposed on telecommunications companies. — 1.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no city or town shall bring any action in federal or state court in this state as a representative member of a class to enforce or collect any business license tax imposed on a telecommunications company.  A city or town may, individually or as a single plaintiff in a multiple-plaintiff lawsuit, bring an action in federal or state court in this state to enforce or collect any business license tax imposed on a telecommunications company.

  2.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any taxpayer from initiating an action in federal or state court as a representative member of a class seeking injunctive relief against the Missouri department of revenue to enforce the imposition, assessment, or collection of the business license tax provided under sections 92.074 to 92.095.

­­--------

(L. 2005 H.B. 209)

(2012) Section's bar on cities and towns serving as class representatives in suits to enforce or collect business license taxes on telecommunications companies violates article V, section 5 requirement that amending a procedural rule of the Supreme Court can only be done in a law limited to that purpose.  State v. Jamison, 357 S.W.3d 589 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: State ex rel. Collector of Winchester v. Jamison, 357 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Collector of Winchester v. Jamison, 357 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 56× “1 The court struck Winchester’s class claims on the basis of section 71.675, RSMo Supp.2009, 2 which bars cities and towns from serving as class representatives in suits to enforce or collect business license taxes imposed on telecommunications companies.”
City of Springfield v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 203 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 22× “209, stating in relevant part: The provisions of section 71.675, RSMo, are severable from the provisions of sections 92.”
State of Missouri ex inf. Charles J. Dykhouse, Boone Cnty. Couns. in his Off. Capacity v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 509 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “The respondent argued that § 71.675 was related to standing, which was a substantive issue.”
Collector of Winchester, Missouri, & City of Winchester, Missouri v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., & Charter Commc'ns, LLC, & Charter Fiberlink-Missouri, LLC, & Charter Advanced Servs. (MO), LLC, 660 S.W.3d 405 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). “This claim was rejected when the Missouri Supreme Court declared § 71.675 unconstitutional in State ex rel.”
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.