Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 80.240 (2026)

Trustees

✓ current as of May 2026

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

80.240. Trustees — power of appointment. — Such board of trustees shall have power to appoint an assessor, collector, marshal, treasurer, and such other officers, servants and agents as may be necessary, remove them from office, prescribe their duties and fix their compensation.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7251, A. 1949 H.B. 2030, A.L. 1953 p. 268)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 7100; 1919 § 8549; 1909 § 9437

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1978–1993 · leading case: Yow v. Vill. of Eolia, 859 S.W.2d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yow v. Vill. of Eolia, 859 S.W.2d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 13× “1986 and Section 80.240 RSMo. 1986. Trustees filed a motion for summary judgment.”

Karzin v. Collett, 562 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “240 RSMo 1969 which specifically refers to appointment of officers at will, § 80.240 RSMo 1969 does not explicitly refer to the status of such officers but only gives the board of trustees the power to appoint and remove.”

Sadler v. Vill. of Bel-Ridge, 741 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Sadler argues his “discharge was viola-tive of due process” and that there was not sufficient evidence to support his dismissal.”

Amaan v. City of Eureka, 615 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. 1981). “1976)—an appointed city marshal; Towns and Villages, § 80.240; 80.420; Karzin v. Collett, 562 S.”

State ex rel. Hicks v. Vill. of Bel-Ridge, 669 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “Section 80.240, RSMo 1978 empowers the board of trustees of a village, inter alia, to approve and to remove employees of that village.”

Carner v. City of Excelsior Springs, 674 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “1978), (footnote 1) which noted that § 80.240, RSMo 1969, gave to board of trustees the power to appoint and remove and an ordinance which in some way protected village employees would not necessarily operate to infringe that power and be contrary to state law.”

Matthews v. Ledbetter, 573 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “” Defendants contend they discharged plaintiff under the more general authority of § 80.240, VAMS, which without restriction empowers it to remove “officers, servants and agents” from office.”

Goodner v. Ford, 600 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “While appellant generalizes upon a constitutional due process allegation, the real issue turns upon the interpretation of §§ 80.240, 80.420 and 536.150(1), RSMo 1978, and the application of this interpretation to the instant case.”

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.