79.240. Removal of officers. — 1. The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, remove from office, for cause shown, any elective officer of the city, such officer being first given opportunity, together with his witnesses, to be heard before the board of aldermen sitting as a board of impeachment. Any elective officer, including the mayor, may in like manner, for cause shown, be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to the board of aldermen, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The mayor may, with the consent of a majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, remove from office any appointive officer of the city at will, and any such appointive officer may be so removed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, independently of the mayor's approval or recommendation. The board of aldermen may pass ordinances regulating the manner of impeachments and removals.
2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the mayor, with the consent of the majority of all the members elected to the board of aldermen, or the board of aldermen by a two-thirds vote of all its members, to remove or discharge any chief, as that term is defined in section 106.273.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case:
Chad v. City of Lake Ozark, 223 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
Chad v. City of Lake Ozark, 223 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 41× “The parties’ motions were heard on April 13, 2006, and taken under advisement. On April 15, 2006, the trial court granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denied the appellant’s.”
City of St. Robert, Missouri, Plaintiff-respondent v. Alan Clark, 471 S.W.3d 321 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 66× “Section 79.240 was amended in 2013 to add a new subsection concerning "non-elected 1 Administrator counterclaimed for declarations prohibiting City from interfering with his work as city administrator and enjoining City from recruiting a new city administrator.”
State ex rel. Gorris v. Mussman, 612 S.W.2d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 20× “Appellant takes the position that his dismissal was improper because the city did not comply with Ordinance 578, which in his view abrogates the “at will” removal power under § 79.240, RSMo. We disagree. As best we can determine, Missouri courts have not yet ruled on this…”
Amaan v. City of Eureka, 615 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. 1981).
· cites it 8× “The issue on this appeal is whether § 79.240, RSMo 1978, 1 which authorizes the mayor of a city of the fourth class, with the consent of the majority of the board of aldermen, to remove at will an appointive officer of the city violates the constitutional rights of respondents…”
Russell v. City of Raytown, 544 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 10× “The City has appealed in KCD 27,921 on the grounds the personnel ordinance is in violation of § 79.240, and, therefore, inapplicable to Russell.”
Hardesty v. City of Buffalo, 155 S.W.3d 69 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 17× “In Hardesty’s lawsuit, he sought a judgment declaring that his removal from this appointed office was invalid because the City failed to comply with § 79.240. 1 The trial court concluded the City’s action was authorized by § 79.”
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Wolf, 710 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 16× “Mary Hall, the former Mayor of the City of Pagedale, appeals from: (1) an order affirming her impeachment from office by the Pagedale Board of Aldermen pursuant to § 79.240 RSMo. 1978 1 and (2) a permanent writ in quo warranto enjoining her from exercising the privileges of the…”
Barnes v. City of Lawson, 820 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 13× “Count I was for declaratory judgment with Barnes claiming that his discharge was in violation of § 79.240, RSMo 1986. Count II was for judicial review of the discharge.”
Cooper v. City of Creve Coeur, 556 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “The subject of the dismissal of officers of cities of the fourth class is covered in § 79.240, RSMo. 1969: “79.240. Removal of officers.”
Rapp v. City of Northwoods, 769 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 24× “The Mayor’s affidavit alleged that: (1) Rapp was terminated by unanimous vote of the Aldermen; (2) Rapp was not employed by the City under any type of written contract and thus was an employee at will; and, (3) Rapp was terminated in accordance with § 79.240 RSMo 1986. Attached…”
State ex rel. Ciaramitaro v. City of Charlack, 679 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “240 must be reconciled. Under § 79.240 an appointed officer of a fourth class city may be removed at will by the mayor with the consent of a majority of all members elected to the board of aldermen.”
Pumphrey v. City of Lutesville, 707 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Appellant claims, however, that for the purpose of discharge under § 79.240, RSMo 1978, he should be treated as a marshal, elected as *477 provided in § 79.”
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.