Missouri 2025 Regular Session

Missouri Senate Bill SB221 Compare Versions

Version 1 (Old)

Version 2 (New)

Old	New		Differences
1	1
2	2		EXPLANATION-Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted
3	3		and is intended to be omitted in the law.
4	4		FIRST REGULAR SESSION
5		-	[PERFECTED]
6		-	SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
7	5		SENATE BILL NO. 221
8	6		103RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
9	7		INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SCHROER.
10		-	0882S.~~02P~~ KRISTINA MARTIN, Secretary
	8	+	0882S.01I KRISTINA MARTIN, Secretary
11	9		AN ACT
12	10		To repeal section 536.140, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to judicial
13	11		review of agency determinations.
14	12
15	13		Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
16	14		Section A. Section 536.140, RSMo, is repealed and one new 1
17	15		section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 536.140, 2
18	16		to read as follows:3
19	17		536.140. 1. The court shall hear the case without a 1
20	18		jury and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4 of 2
21	19		this section, shall hear it upon the petition and record 3
22	20		filed as aforesaid. 4
23	21		2. The inquiry may extend to a determination of 5
24	22		whether the action of the agency 6
25	23		(1) Is in violation of constitutional provisions; 7
26	24		(2) Is in excess of the statutory authority or 8
27	25		jurisdiction of the agency; 9
28	26		(3) Is unsupported by competent and substantial 10
29	27		evidence upon the whole record; 11
30	28		(4) Is, for any other reason, unauthorized by law; 12
31	29		(5) Is made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair 13
32	30		trial; 14
33		-	(6) Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; 15 ~~SS SB 221 2~~
34		-	(7) Involves an abuse of discretion. 16
	31	+	(6) Is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; 15
	32	+	(7) Involves an abuse of discretion. 16 SB 221 2
35	33		The scope of judicial review in all contested cases, wh ether 17
36	34		or not subject to judicial review pursuant to sections 18
37	35		536.100 to 536.140, and in all cases in which judicial 19
38	36		review of decisions of administrative officers or bodies, 20
39	37		whether state or local, is now or may hereafter be provided 21
40	38		by law, shall in all cases be at least as broad as the scope 22
41	39		of judicial review provided for in this subsection [; 23
42	40		provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall in 24
43	41		any way change or affect the provisions of sections 311.690 25
44	42		and 311.700]. 26
45	43		3. [Whenever the action of the agency being reviewed 27
46	44		does not involve the exercise by the agency of 28
47	45		administrative discretion in the light of the facts, but 29
48	46		involves only the application by the agency of the law to 30
49	47		the facts, the court may upon application of any party 31
50	48		conduct a de novo review of the agency decision ] In 32
51	49		interpreting a state statute, rule, regulation, or other 33
52	50		subregulatory document, a court or an officer hearing an 34
53	51		administrative action shall not defer to a state agency's 35
54	52		interpretation of such sta tute, rule, regulation, or other 36
55	53		document, and shall interpret the meaning and effect de 37
56	54		novo. In actions brought by or against a state agency, 38
57	55		after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the 39
58		-	court or hearing officer shall ~~decide~~ any ~~remaining~~ doubt in 40
59		-	favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency 41
	56	+	court or hearing officer shall exercise any remai ning doubt 40
	57	+	in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency 41
60	58		power and maximizes individual liberty . 42
61	59		4. Wherever under [subsection 3 of] this section or 43
62	60		otherwise the court is entitled to weigh the evidence and 44
63	61		determine the facts for i tself, the court may hear and 45
64		-	consider additional evidence if the court finds that such 46 ~~SS SB 221 3~~
	62	+	consider additional evidence if the court finds that such 46
65	63		evidence in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not 47
66		-	have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing 48
	64	+	have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing 48 SB 221 3
67	65		before the agency. Wherever the court is no t entitled to 49
68	66		weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, if 50
69	67		the court finds that there is competent and material 51
70	68		evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 52
71	69		could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at 53
72	70		the hearing before the agency, the court may remand the case 54
73	71		to the agency with directions to reconsider the same in the 55
74	72		light of such evidence. The court may in any case hear and 56
75	73		consider evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or 57
76	74		of unfairness by the agency, not shown in the record. 58
77	75		5. The court shall render judgment affirming, 59
78	76		reversing, or modifying the agency's order, and may order 60
79	77		the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's 61
80	78		opinion and judgment, and may order the agency to take such 62
81	79		further action as it may be proper to require; but the court 63
82	80		shall not substitute its discretion for discretion legally 64
83	81		vested in the agency, unless the court determines that the 65
84	82		agency decision was arbitrary or capricious. 66
85	83		6. Appeals may be taken from the judgment of the court 67
86	84		as in other civil cases. 68
87	85		