statutes rule in Missouri

2024Woods v. Dierker, 684 S.W.3d 727 , 730 n.2 (Mo. banc 2024), which addressed the conflict between section 544.270 and Rule 22.09(a), stating “Rule 22.09(a) governs to the extent there is any conflict between the statutes and the rule . . . .” 14 1960) (citation omitted) (addressing defendant’s “claim that he was not accorded the preliminary examination contemplated by the statutes and the rules of this court” because the preliminary hearing was “a farce and there was no competent proof” by the State from which the magistrate could have found probable cause).

1995Id.

1975The assertion that this deprivation of an evidentiary hearing constitutes a denial of due process was made and rejected in Pinzino , the court saying, 334 S.W.2d at 27 -28: “Appellant contends, however, that even though we hold that the statutes required no hearing prior to the supervisor’s refusal to issue a renewal license, the supervisor’s failure to hold such a hearing and the refusal of the circuit court to hear evidence on review, constituted a denial of due process in violation of the pertinent provisions of the state and federal constitutions.

1870Thus, in Ex parte Dodge, 7 Cow. 147 , the question was whether an appeal from a justice’s judgment was regular if brought on Monday, where the time limited by the statute (10 days) expired on the day before.