Review by injunction or original writ, when--scope.
536.150. 1. When any administrative officer or bodyexisting under the constitution or by statute or by municipalcharter or ordinance shall have rendered a decision which is notsubject to administrative review, determining the legal rights,duties or privileges of any person, including the denial orrevocation of a license, and there is no other provision forjudicial inquiry into or review of such decision, such decisionmay be reviewed by suit for injunction, certiorari, mandamus,prohibition or other appropriate action, and in any such reviewproceeding the court may determine the facts relevant to thequestion whether such person at the time of such decision wassubject to such legal duty, or had such right, or was entitled tosuch privilege, and may hear such evidence on such question asmay be properly adduced, and the court may determine whether suchdecision, in view of the facts as they appear to the court, isunconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, orcapricious or involves an abuse of discretion; and the courtshall render judgment accordingly, and may order theadministrative officer or body to take such further action as itmay be proper to require; but the court shall not substitute itsdiscretion for discretion legally vested in such administrativeofficer or body, and in cases where the granting or withholdingof a privilege is committed by law to the sole discretion of suchadministrative officer or body, such discretion lawfullyexercised shall not be disturbed.
2. Nothing in this section shall apply to contested casesreviewable pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair anypower to take summary action lawfully vested in any suchadministrative officer or body, or to limit the jurisdiction ofany court or the scope of any remedy available in the absence ofthis section.
(L. 1953 p. 678 §§ 1, 2, 3)
(1972) Where county ordinance provided no appeal from ruling of Board of Building Appeals, relator was entitled to writ of certiorari to compel the board to certify a sufficiently complete record of proceedings of basis leading to board's decision including name and identity of witnesses and at least a summary of their testimony. State ex rel. Walmar Investment Co. v. Armstrong (A.), 477 S.W.2d 730.
(1975) School district has no right to appeal decision of county board of equalization. State ex rel. St. Francois County School Dist. R-III v. Lalumondier (Mo.), 518 S.W.2d 638.
(1979) Mandamus was remedy when city council denied a liquor license under a municipal code when all conditions were met and was not a "contested" case. State ex rel. Keeven v. City of Hazelwood, et al. (A.), 585 S.W.2d 557.
Review by injunction or original writ, when--scope.
536.150. 1. When any administrative officer or bodyexisting under the constitution or by statute or by municipalcharter or ordinance shall have rendered a decision which is notsubject to administrative review, determining the legal rights,duties or privileges of any person, including the denial orrevocation of a license, and there is no other provision forjudicial inquiry into or review of such decision, such decisionmay be reviewed by suit for injunction, certiorari, mandamus,prohibition or other appropriate action, and in any such reviewproceeding the court may determine the facts relevant to thequestion whether such person at the time of such decision wassubject to such legal duty, or had such right, or was entitled tosuch privilege, and may hear such evidence on such question asmay be properly adduced, and the court may determine whether suchdecision, in view of the facts as they appear to the court, isunconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, orcapricious or involves an abuse of discretion; and the courtshall render judgment accordingly, and may order theadministrative officer or body to take such further action as itmay be proper to require; but the court shall not substitute itsdiscretion for discretion legally vested in such administrativeofficer or body, and in cases where the granting or withholdingof a privilege is committed by law to the sole discretion of suchadministrative officer or body, such discretion lawfullyexercised shall not be disturbed.
2. Nothing in this section shall apply to contested casesreviewable pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair anypower to take summary action lawfully vested in any suchadministrative officer or body, or to limit the jurisdiction ofany court or the scope of any remedy available in the absence ofthis section.
(L. 1953 p. 678 §§ 1, 2, 3)
(1972) Where county ordinance provided no appeal from ruling of Board of Building Appeals, relator was entitled to writ of certiorari to compel the board to certify a sufficiently complete record of proceedings of basis leading to board's decision including name and identity of witnesses and at least a summary of their testimony. State ex rel. Walmar Investment Co. v. Armstrong (A.), 477 S.W.2d 730.
(1975) School district has no right to appeal decision of county board of equalization. State ex rel. St. Francois County School Dist. R-III v. Lalumondier (Mo.), 518 S.W.2d 638.
(1979) Mandamus was remedy when city council denied a liquor license under a municipal code when all conditions were met and was not a "contested" case. State ex rel. Keeven v. City of Hazelwood, et al. (A.), 585 S.W.2d 557.
Review by injunction or original writ, when--scope.
536.150. 1. When any administrative officer or bodyexisting under the constitution or by statute or by municipalcharter or ordinance shall have rendered a decision which is notsubject to administrative review, determining the legal rights,duties or privileges of any person, including the denial orrevocation of a license, and there is no other provision forjudicial inquiry into or review of such decision, such decisionmay be reviewed by suit for injunction, certiorari, mandamus,prohibition or other appropriate action, and in any such reviewproceeding the court may determine the facts relevant to thequestion whether such person at the time of such decision wassubject to such legal duty, or had such right, or was entitled tosuch privilege, and may hear such evidence on such question asmay be properly adduced, and the court may determine whether suchdecision, in view of the facts as they appear to the court, isunconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, orcapricious or involves an abuse of discretion; and the courtshall render judgment accordingly, and may order theadministrative officer or body to take such further action as itmay be proper to require; but the court shall not substitute itsdiscretion for discretion legally vested in such administrativeofficer or body, and in cases where the granting or withholdingof a privilege is committed by law to the sole discretion of suchadministrative officer or body, such discretion lawfullyexercised shall not be disturbed.
2. Nothing in this section shall apply to contested casesreviewable pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair anypower to take summary action lawfully vested in any suchadministrative officer or body, or to limit the jurisdiction ofany court or the scope of any remedy available in the absence ofthis section.
(L. 1953 p. 678 §§ 1, 2, 3)
(1972) Where county ordinance provided no appeal from ruling of Board of Building Appeals, relator was entitled to writ of certiorari to compel the board to certify a sufficiently complete record of proceedings of basis leading to board's decision including name and identity of witnesses and at least a summary of their testimony. State ex rel. Walmar Investment Co. v. Armstrong (A.), 477 S.W.2d 730.
(1975) School district has no right to appeal decision of county board of equalization. State ex rel. St. Francois County School Dist. R-III v. Lalumondier (Mo.), 518 S.W.2d 638.
(1979) Mandamus was remedy when city council denied a liquor license under a municipal code when all conditions were met and was not a "contested" case. State ex rel. Keeven v. City of Hazelwood, et al. (A.), 585 S.W.2d 557.
