Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 89
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.110 (2026)

Board of adjustment

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

  89.110.  Board of adjustment — decisions subject to review — procedure. — Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment, any neighborhood organization as defined in section 32.105 representing such person or persons or any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality, may present to the circuit court of the county or city in which the property affected is located a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality.  Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty days after the filing of the decision in the office of the board.  Upon the presentation of such petition the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment to review such decision of the board of adjustment and shall prescribe therein the time within which a return thereto must be made and served upon the relator's attorney, which shall not be less than ten days and may be extended by the court.  The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the board and on due cause shown, grant a restraining order.  The board of adjustment shall not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof or of such portions thereof as may be called for by such writ.  The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.  If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take additional evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which a determination of the court shall be made.  The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review.  Costs shall not be allowed against the board unless it shall appear to the court that it acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith, or with malice in making the decision appealed from.  All issues in any proceedings under sections 89.080 to 89.110 shall have preference over all other civil actions and proceedings.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7418, A.L. 1997 S.B. 112)

Prior revision: 1929 § 7265

(1965) This section was not meant to change the nature of the hearing from one of review to one de novo on the merits, but was intended only to allow further evidence that touches upon the procedural legality of the hearings before the board. State v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc. (A.), 395 S.W.2d 316.

(1974) Held that filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari within 30 days met requirement of "presented to the court".  State ex rel. Monsey Feager/Rouse-Waites v. McGuire (A.), 510 S.W.2d 449.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Carl & Janice Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 482 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carl & Janice Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 482 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 80× “Section 89.110 1 provides that parties aggrieved by a board of adjustment decision are "to seek review by requesting a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, but none of the four counts in Appellants’ petition requested a writ of cer-tiorari under Section 89.”
Babb v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 414 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 47× “100, RSMo or Section 89.110 RSMo?, 54 J. OF MO. BAR 147, 149 (1998).”
State Ex Rel. Jackson v. City of Joplin, 300 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 41× “Jackson and Ryan Jackson (collectively, “Appellants”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to section 89.110 1 alleging that the city of Joplin (“the City”) failed to follow the proper procedure when it granted a special use permit to Parker Mortuary.”
Normandy Sch. Dist. v. City of Pasadena Hills, 70 S.W.3d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 25× “First, city claims that school district’s exclusive procedural relief from an adverse BZA decision was judicial review pursuant to section 89.110 RSMo 1994 1 *492 The trial court rejected city’s argument that school district’s exclusive remedy was a certiorari proceeding under…”
Deffenbaugh Indus., Inc. v. Potts, 802 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 17× “The judicial review of a zoning and planning decision by a municipal agency is provided by § 89.110, and so controls. Cohen v. Ennis, 318 S.”
Hart v. Bd. of Adj. of City of Marshall, 616 S.W.2d 111 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 17× “The circuit court purported to act under Section 89.110 RSMo 1978, and the disposi-tive issue is the jurisdiction of the circuit court to enter its order in the procedural circumstances shown by the record.”
Drury Displays, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of St. Louis, 760 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. 1988). · cites it 13× “The court of appeals characterized the question raised by the appeal as whether vel non the trial court erred in dismissing Drury’s timely though unverified peitition on the basis that the verification requirement of § 89.110, RSMo 1986, is jurisdictional and determining that…”
State Ex Rel. Henze v. Wetzel, 754 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 18× “The court found that these proceedings were governed by § 89.110, R.S.Mo. 1986 and “not by the provisions of Section 536.”
Cohen v. Ennis, 318 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. 1958). · cites it 21× “) Continental and the board filed separate motions to dismiss the petition, alleging that it was not presented to the court "within thirty days after the filing of the decision in the office of the hoard” as required by the review provisions of the zoning statutes, Section…”
Matthew v. Smith, 707 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 8× “§ 89.110, RSMo 1978. The circuit court affirmed the Board's order; on appeal, the court of appeals held that the Board was without authority to grant the requested variance.”
Platte Woods United Methodist Church v. City of Platte Woods, 935 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “Review of this case, however, was appropriate under section 89.110 2 . Section 89.110 affords judicial review of zoning and planning decisions by municipal agencies.”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Wiggins, 454 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. 1970). · cites it 10× “Such action by us would have the direct effect of taking away from respondents their victory obtained before the Board, which victory they say is final because of appellants' failure to appeal therefrom within 30 days as required by Statutory Section 89.110. This brings us face…”
Show all 105 citing cases →
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.