536.140. Scope of judicial review--judgment--appeals.
Scope of judicial review--judgment--appeals.
536.140. 1. The court shall hear the case without a jury and, exceptas otherwise provided in subsection 4 of this section, shall hear it uponthe petition and record filed as aforesaid.
2. The inquiry may extend to a determination of whether the action ofthe agency
(1) Is in violation of constitutional provisions;
(2) Is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of theagency;
(3) Is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon thewhole 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.
The scope of judicial review in all contested cases, whether or not subjectto judicial review pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140, and in allcases in which judicial review of decisions of administrative officers orbodies, whether state or local, is now or may hereafter be provided by law,shall in all cases be at least as broad as the scope of judicial reviewprovided for in this subsection; provided, however, that nothing hereincontained shall in any way change or affect the provisions of sections311.690* and 311.700*, RSMo.
3. Whenever the action of the agency being reviewed does not involvethe exercise by the agency of administrative discretion in the light of thefacts, but involves only the application by the agency of the law to thefacts, the court may upon application of any party conduct a de novo reviewof the agency decision.
4. Wherever under subsection 3 of this section or otherwise the courtis entitled to weigh the evidence and determine the facts for itself, thecourt may hear and consider additional evidence if the court finds thatsuch evidence in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have beenproduced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency.Wherever the court is not entitled to weigh the evidence and determine thefacts for itself, if the court finds that there is competent and materialevidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not havebeen produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the agency,the court may remand the case to the agency with directions to reconsiderthe same in the light of such evidence. The court may in any case hear andconsider evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or of unfairnessby the agency, not shown in the record.
5. The court shall render judgment affirming, reversing, or modifyingthe agency's order, and may order the reconsideration of the case in thelight of the court's opinion and judgment, and may order the agency to takesuch further action as it may be proper to require; but the court shall notsubstitute its discretion for discretion legally vested in the agency,unless the court determines that the agency decision was arbitrary orcapricious.
6. Appeals may be taken from the judgment of the court as in othercivil cases.
(L. 1945 p. 1504 § 10, A.L. 1953 p. 679, A.L. 2005 H.B. 576)*Sections 311.690 and 311.700 were repealed by S.B. 661, 1978.
(1974) Duty of reviewing court set out in detail. Hanebrink v. Parker (A.), 506 S.W.2d 455.
(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).