Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 84
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 84.150 (2026)

Total number of officers and number in each rank

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  84.150.  Total number of officers and number in each rank. — The total number of officers and the number of officers at each rank of the police force in each such city shall be determined by the board of police commissioners.  The officers of the police force shall have commissions issued to them by the boards of police commissioners, and those heretofore and those hereafter commissioned shall serve so long as they shall faithfully perform their duties and possess the necessary mental and physical ability, and be subject to removal only for cause after a hearing by the board, who are hereby invested with exclusive jurisdiction in the premises.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7693, A.L. 1941 p. 462, A.L. 1945 p. 1257, A.L. 1947 V. II p. 304, A.L. 1957 p. 251, A.L. 1961 p. 206, A.L. 1972 H.B. 1144, A.L. 1977 S.B. 255, A.L. 1978 S.B. 508, A.L. 1993 S.B. 250, A.L. 2009 H.B. 481, A.L. 2025 H.B. 495)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 7545; 1919 § 8955; 1909 § 9807

Effective 3-26-25

Severability clause, see § 1.1001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1955–2019 · leading case: Spencer v. Zobrist, 323 S.W.3d 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spencer v. Zobrist, 323 S.W.3d 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Because, however, the Board did not expressly state that Spencer’s actions in violating the policies constituted “cause” for termination, Spencer argues that the Board failed to determine whether there actually was cause.”
McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 5× “Louis Police Force, specifying various authorized ranks and the number of each, is set out in § 84.150. The time which a member of the department must spend in grade before promotion to a particular rank is provided in § 84.”
Schnell v. Zobrist, 323 S.W.3d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Because, however, the Board did not expressly state that Schnell’s actions in violating the policies constituted “cause” for termination, Schnell argues that the Board failed to determine whether there actually was cause.”
William Smith v. City of St. Louis, 573 S.W.3d 705 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Court also held that, “In the absence of any evidence that the hearing given to appellants was conducted in conformity with the procedural requirements of an adversary hearing under MAPA, the hearing was not a 7 Under Section 84.150 (Cum. Supp. 2010), St. Louis City Police…”
Ferrario v. Baer, 745 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “This point is denied as is his alternate request to remand the case to the circuit court to hear the case de novo as it flies in the face of Section 84.150, RSMo 1986, review of administrative cases, which as applicable here states officers are “subject to removal only for cause…”
Cooper v. City of Creve Coeur, 556 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “In Davis , the proceeding to remove a police officer was governed by § 84.150, RSMo. Supp. 1975, which provides that a police officer in the City of St.”
Scism v. Long, 280 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 6× “after a hearing by the board, who are hereby invested with the exclusive jurisdiction , in the premises.”
Davis v. Long, 360 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 4× “” The board contends that its action in forfeiting plaintiff’s pay was not such an action as required a hearing, saying that Section 84.150 (all statutory references hereinafter, unless otherwise stated, are to RSMo 1959, V.”
Fitzgerald v. City of Maryland Heights, 796 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “This definition is consistent with our Supreme Court’s interpretation of what “for cause” meant in a predecessor to § 84.150, which permits removal of police officers: “for cause” means legal cause.”
Schuettenberg v. Bd. of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 935 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “120 states: “The patrolmen and turnkeys hereafter appointed shall serve while they shall faithfully perform their duties and possess mental and physical ability and be subject to removal only for cause after a hearing by the boards, who are hereby invested with the exclusive…”
Cummings v. Mischeaux, 960 S.W.2d 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See § 84.150, RSMo 1994. In light of our decision that the findings are insufficient, we are not ruling as to the weight that a reviewing court should grant to the Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility, in matters decided by the Police Board.”
State ex rel. McGull v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Commissioners, 178 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 17× “Additionally, the Court decided that “exclusive” jurisdiction, as used in Section 84.150, does not mean “non-delega-ble” jurisdiction; rather, “exclusive” means that “the one who holds the ‘exclusive’ rights must explicitly authorize any delegation.”
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.