MO Rev Stat § 536.140 (2021)
2021 Missouri Revised Statutes|Title XXXVI - Statutory Actions and Torts|Chapter 536 - Administrative Procedure and Review|Section 536.140 - Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals.

Effective - 28 Aug 2005   536.140. Scope of judicial review — judgment — appeals. — 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. ­­The scope of judicial review in all contested cases, whether or not subject to judicial review pursuant to sections 536.100 to 536.140, and in all cases in which judicial review of decisions of administrative officers or bodies, 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 review provided for in this subsection; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall in any way change or affect the provisions of sections 311.690* and 311.700*.  3. Whenever the action of the agency being reviewed does not involve the exercise by the agency of administrative discretion in the light of the facts, but involves only the application by the agency of the law to the facts, the court may upon application of any party conduct a de novo review of the agency decision.  4. Wherever under subsection 3 of 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. ­­-------- (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).