Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 99
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 99.300 (2026)

Citation of law

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

  99.300.  Citation of law. — Sections 99.300 to 99.660 shall be known and may be cited as the "Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law".

­­--------

(L. 1951 p. 300 § 1)

(1954) This law is constitutional. State on Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redev. Auth. 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44;

(1954) Land Clearance for Redev. Auth. v. City of St. Louis (Mo.), 270 S.W.2d 58.

(1964) Election of city by resolution and vote of people, to come under this law could not be revoked by initiative proceedings since law was not enacted for solely municipal objectives but for state purposes as well, and law remains effective until legislature repeals it or provides by statute for means of withdrawal. Anderson v. Smith (A.), 377 S.W.2d 554.

(1966) Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law, §§ 99.300 to 99.660, and the Urban Redevelopment Corporation Law, chapter 353 do not violate the constitutional provisions prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without consent of owner. Annbar Associates v. West Side Redevelopment Corp. (Mo.), 397 S.W.2d 635.

(1968) Where redevelopment authority had condemned plaintiff's land and was now owner and possessor, plaintiff had no legally protectable interest and there was no justiciable controversy for plaintiff to maintain action for declaratory judgment on question of authority's compliance with statutory requirements.  Brooks v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. (A.), 425 S.W.2d 481.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1954–2014 · leading case: King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “230, RSMo 1969 [15] , to provide habitable dwellings for persons of low incomes, and of the Land Clearance for Development Authority Law, §§ 99.300 to 99.660, RSMo 1969, for the reclamation and rehabilitation of blighted neighborhoods.”
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. v. Inserra, 284 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Does Substantial Evidence Support the Board’s Detemiination? The Board determined the Area to be blighted pursuant to the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law, section 99.300 et seq. A “blighted area” is: [A]n area which, by reason of the predominance of defective or…”
Annbar Assocs. v. West Side Redevelopment Corp., 397 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. 1965). · cites it 2× “” It was pursuant to the authority of Article VI, § 21, that the General Assembly enacted the “Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law” (§§ 99.300 to 99.660) and pursuant to that section and Article X, § 7, that the General Assembly enacted “The Urban Redevelopment…”
City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., 417 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “; Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law, §§ 99.300, RSMo et seq.; The Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law, §§ 353.”
State Ex Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth., 270 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1954). “, RSMo 1949, §§ 99.300 through 99.660, V.A.M.S.) and also challenges the legality of various activities of respondents which have been taken or are planned pursuant to said Law.”
Anderson v. Smith, 377 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “In 1951 our state legislature enacted, the “Land Clearance For Redevelopment Authority Law” (Sections 99.300 ff., RSMo-1959, V.A.M.S.).”
J.C. Nichols Co. v. City of Kansas City, 639 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “In enacting the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law in 1951 (§ 99.300-§ 99.660), the assembly sought to eliminate or prevent urban deterioration by the acquisition of land and its subsequent sale or lease for redevelopment, renewal or rehabilitation and expressly…”
BHA Grp. Holding, Inc. v. Pendergast, 173 S.W.3d 373 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “From this constitutional authorization came first the statute authorizing the creation of Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authorities (LCRA’s), Section 99.300 et seq., and the far more uncommon Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law contained in Chapter 353.”
Carr Cent. Neighborhood Corp. v. US DEPT. OF HUD, 424 F. Supp. 1194 (E.D. Mo. 1976). · cites it 2× “Louis Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (Authority) was created by an ordinance enacted pursuant to the Missouri Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law (Section 99.300 et seq. R.S.Mo.), to administer local urban redevelopment programs in the City of St.”
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 270 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1954). “Sections 99.300 to 99.660, 1953 Cum.Supp.”
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. of Joplin v. Joplin Union Depot Co., 429 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968). “§§ 99.300 to 99.660], has exercised its power of eminent domain [V.”
Union Elec. Co. v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth., 555 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. 1977). “The requirement that Union Electric remove its facilities at its expense is not a “taking” of its property or a denial of due process within the meaning of the provisions of the federal and state constitutions referred to in Union Electric’s petition. Under the facts alleged it…”
Show all 17 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.