Section V Section 18

Constitution

Effective - 02 Sep 1976, see footnote   

  V Section 18.  Judicial review of action of administrative agencies — scope of review. — All final decisions, findings, rules and orders on any administrative officer or body existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law; and such review shall include the determination whether the same are authorized by law, and in cases in which a hearing is required by law, whether the same are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.  Unless otherwise provided by law, administrative decisions, findings, rules and orders subject to review under this section or which are otherwise subject to direct judicial review, shall be reviewed in such manner and by such court as the supreme court by rule shall direct and the court so designated shall, in addition to its other jurisdiction, have jurisdiction to hear and determine any such review proceeding.

­­--------

Source: Const. of 1945 (Amended August 3, 1976).

(This was § 22 of Art. V prior to 1976)

(1956) The scope of review prescribed by the constitutional provision is a "minimum standard" and such provision does not prohibit legislation authorizing a broader scope of review. State ex rel. St. L. Publ. Serv. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 365 Mo. 1032, 291 S.W.2d 95.

(1958) Section 22, Art. V of the Constitution does not affect § 64.120 and, therefore, the reviewing court on certiorari may hear and consider evidence in addition to that before the board. State ex rel. Beacon Court v. Wind (A.), 309 S.W.2d 663.

(1958) In reviewing a workmen's compensation case, the constitution does not mean that the court may substitute its own judge for that of the commission; but does authorize the court to decide whether such tribunal could have reasonably made its findings. Evidence is viewed in light most favorable to the findings of the commission. Hague v. Wurdack (Mo.), 316 S.W.2d 523.

(1958) Method of review prescribed in § 89.110 was not abrogated by Art. V § 22 of the constitution and requirement that petition for review be presented to court within thirty days after decision filed by board is mandatory and jurisdictional and extrajudicial statement of counsel of board, if made, that he would notify protestants of final decision could neither modify statute nor invalidate lawfully made order of the board. Cohen v. Ennis (Mo.), 318 S.W.2d 310.

(1960) Order of Division of Workmen's Compensation denying application for exhuming of body of deceased employee and for postmortem examination held not final and not subject to appeal either under statutory or constitutional provisions. State ex rel. Faris v. Eversole (Mo.), 332 S.W.2d 879.

(1960) Suspension of city liquor license after hearing sustained as against contention that provision in statute requiring licensee to request recording of proceedings at his own expense is violative of § 22 of Article V of the Constitution since that requirement is valid. State ex rel. Bauman v. Quinn (Mo.), 337 S.W.2d 84.

(1961) Where issue of whether appellants, by reason of their petition for review of administrative board's decision in proceeding where they appeared as witnesses, were entitled to judicial review under administrative procedure act was to be determined before necessity of ruling on constitutional question arose, the supreme court would transfer case to court of appeals. Clay & Bailey Mfg. Co. v. Anderson (Mo.), 344 S.W.2d 46.

(1961) County held entitled to institute proceedings for judicial review of State Tax Commission's determination as to the value of property as against contention that the public policy as established by § 22 of Article V of the Constitution is that only private persons have the right to judicial review. In re St. Joseph Lead Company (Mo.), 352 S.W.2d 656.

(1965) In workmen's compensation case, reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment on evidence for that of Industrial Commission, but is empowered to determine whether award of commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Jacobs v. Eldridge Construction Co. (A.), 393 S.W.2d 33.

(1966) Industrial Commission is sole judge of weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses in workmen's compensation proceedings. Harryman v. L-N Buick-Pontiac, Inc. (A.), 402 S.W.2d 828.

(1967) Where there is no material conflict in, or dispute concerning, the facts bearing upon a claimant's status as an employee vel non, the resolution of that issue becomes a question of law and the industrial commission's determination is not binding on the reviewing court. Lawson v. Lawson (A.), 415 S.W.2d 313.

(1973) Held, welfare benefits are in the nature of property rights or fundamental civil rights protected by the Fed. Const., and as such are "private rights" within the meaning of Art. V § 22, Mo. Const. Hill v. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare (Mo. Banc), 503 S.W.2d 6.

(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.

(2014) Board of Law Examiners is not an administrative body, and therefore section governing judicial review of administrative action does not provide a right for judicial review of Board's procedures to score bar examinations. Caranchini v. Mo. Bd. of Law Examiners, 447 S.W.3d 768 (Mo.App.W.D.).