Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 88.497 (2026)

Condemnation of private property

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

  88.497.  Condemnation of private property. — Private property may be taken by the cities of the third class for public use for the purpose of establishing, opening, widening, extending or altering any street, avenue, alley, wharf, creek, river, watercourse, market place, public park or public square, and for establishing market houses, and for any other necessary public purposes.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 6998)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 6852; 1919 § 8334; 1909 § 9261

(1998) A municipality's general statutory authority to condemn private property is not sufficient to condemn property devoted to prior public use for another public use which will destroy, impair or interfere with such prior use.  Smithville v. St. Luke's Northland Hospital, 972 S.W.2d 416 (W.D.Mo.).

(2014)  Section authorizing third-class city authority to condemn private property for public use does not confer authority to condemn for blight; section was enacted prior to state constitutional provision allowing the General Assembly to permit non-charter cities to utilize eminent domain to eliminate blighted areas.  City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., LLC, 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2014 · leading case: City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 46× “Beaton’s motion to dismiss finding that the City did not have the authority to condemn the Burger King property under section 88.497, RSMo 2000, for the “public purpose” of eliminating blight.”
City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, 249 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 4× “, or to section 88.497, which authorizes third-class cities to use eminent domain for specific purposes.”
City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., LLC Platte Valley Bank of Missouri & Keith Hicklin, No. WD76068 & WD76110 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2014). · cites it 42× “Beaton's motion to dismiss finding that the City did not have the authority to condemn the Burger King property under section 88.497, RSMo 2000, for the "public purpose" of eliminating blight.”
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.