86.037. Board to have exclusive original jurisdiction — judicial review. — The board of trustees has exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to or affecting the funds herein provided for, including, in addition to all other matters, all claims for annuities, benefits, refunds or pensions under this law, and its action, decision or determination in any matter is reviewable under chapter 536 only, and any party to the proceedings has a right of appeal from the decision of the reviewing court. Subject to the limitations of sections 86.010 to 86.193, the board of trustees shall, from time to time, establish rules and regulations for the administration of funds created by this law, for the transaction of its business and for the limitation of the time within which claims may be filed.
Notes of Decisions
Tanisha Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metro. Police Dep't Steven A. Gori, Michael A. Deeba, Sr., Saint Louis Bd. of Police Commissioners, Richard H. Gray, Bettye Battle Turner, Thomas J. Irwin, & Francis G. Slay, 492 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Section 86.037 states the police retirement system’s board of-trustees “has exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters related *173 to or affecting the funds herein provided for, including, nn addition to all other matters, all claims for .”
Disabled Police Vets. Club v. Long, 279 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 4× “The jurisdiction of this court is urged by relator and conceded by respondents, and this court does have jurisdiction of this appeal, but it must be pointed out that relator is in error in resting jurisdiction on Section 86.037. That provision of Section 86.”
Miller v. Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis, 296 S.W.2d 78 (Mo. 1956).
· cites it 4× “empower any of the defendants to administer oaths; that plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds that, in view of the lack of authority of said defendants to summon witnesses and documents, and administer oaths, any determination of plaintiff’s rights…”
Cohen v. Ennis, 318 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 2× “” In the Murphy case, supra, it was held that the act was inconsistent with Article V, Section 22, of the Constitution and was, therefore, supplanted by the scope of review provisions set forth in Section 536.140 of the administrative procedure act.”
Ruedlinger v. Long, 283 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 2× “Relator has undertaken to secure a review of the board’s action by filing a petition for a writ of cer-tiorari, thus misconceiving the proper form of a petition in such a 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.