Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 80
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 80.420 (2026)

Marshal and policemen

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

  80.420.  Marshal and policemen — removal. — 1.  The policemen of the town, in the discharge of their duties, shall be subject to the orders of the marshal only as chief of police; but any marshal, assistant marshal or policeman may be instantly removed from his office by the board of trustees at a regular or called meeting, for any wanton neglect of duty.

  2.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the board of trustees to remove or discharge any chief, as that term is defined in section 106.273.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7279, A.L. 2013 H.B. 307)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 7128; 1919 § 8577; 1909 § 9465

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1978–1984 · leading case: Karzin v. Collett, 562 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Karzin v. Collett, 562 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 10× “For reversal appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding in favor of respondents because the evidence showed that: (1) appellant had not been tried for cause, contrary to Missouri law, § 80.420 RSMo 1969, and (2) respon-. dents’ action discharging him was unlawful,…”
State ex rel. Hicks v. Vill. of Bel-Ridge, 669 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of respondent because (1) he was dismissed without cause contrary to a local personnel rule; (2) his termination was contrary to Missouri law, Section 80.420, RSMo 1978 and Section 536.”
Matthews v. Ledbetter, 573 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff sued the Village of Breckenridge Hills police chief and board members alleging: He was employed as a parttime police officer; the board voted to dismiss him on or before October 22, 1973; he was ordered to turn in his badge and other equipment July 30, 1974; § 80.420,…”
Goodner v. Ford, 600 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Appellant alleges the circuit court erred in sustaining respondent’s motion to dismiss because said dismissal failed to consider § 80.420, RSMo 1978 and § 536.150(1), RSMo 1978 relative to appellant’s instant removal from his employment.”
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.