Missouri § 536.140 Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals.

Missouri Statutes

§ 536.140 — Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals.

Missouri § 536.140

Title XXXVISTATUTORY ACTIONS AND TORTS

Ch. 536Administrative Procedure and Review

This text of Missouri § 536.140 (Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.140 (2026).

Text

1. The court shall hear the case without a jury and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4 of this section, shall hear it upon the petition and record filed as aforesaid. 2. The inquiry may extend to a determination of whether the action of the agency

(1)Is in violation of constitutional provisions;

(2)Is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;

(3)Is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record;

(4)Is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law;

(5)Is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial;

(6)Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable;

(7)Involves an abuse of discretion. 3. In interpreting a state statute, rule, regulation, or other subregulatory document, a court or an officer hearing an ad

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. The court shall hear the case without a jury and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4 of this section, shall hear it upon the petition and record filed as aforesaid.

2. The inquiry may extend to a determination of whether the action of the agency

(1) Is in violation of constitutional provisions;

(2) Is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;

(3) Is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record;

(4) Is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law;

(5) Is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial;

(6) Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable;

(7) Involves an abuse of discretion.

3. In interpreting a state statute, rule, regulation, or other subregulatory document, a court or an officer hearing an administrative action shall not defer to a state agency's interpretation of such statute, rule, regulation, or other document, and shall interpret the meaning and effect de novo. In actions brought by or against a state agency, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer shall decide any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.

4. Wherever under this section or otherwise the court is entitled to weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, the court may hear and consider additional evidence if the court finds that such evidence in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency. Wherever the court is not entitled to weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, if the court finds that there is competent and material evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency, the court may remand the case to the agency with directions to reconsider the same in the light of such evidence. The court may in any case hear and consider evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or of unfairness by the agency, not shown in the record.

5. The court shall render judgment affirming, reversing, or modifying the agency's order, and may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's opinion and judgment, and may order the agency to take such further action as it may be proper to require; but the court shall not substitute its discretion for discretion legally vested in the agency, unless the court determines that the agency decision was arbitrary or capricious.

6. Appeals may be taken from the judgment of the court as in other civil cases.

Legislative History

(L. 1945 p. 1504 § 10, A.L. 1953 p. 679, A.L. 2005 H.B. 576, A.L. 2025 S.B. 221) (1999) Given lack of authority of Administrative Hearing Commission to determine constitutionality of liquor control regulation, review by the Supreme Court is only of the circuit court's judgment. Cocktail Fortune, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 994 S.W.2d 955 (Mo.banc). (2004) Reviewing court must look to the whole record involving an administrative agency's decision, and not merely that evidence supporting its decision. Lagud v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, 136 S.W.3d 786 (Mo.banc).