enforcement rule in Missouri

1966Co., 219 Mo., 524 , 118 S.W. 40, 43 , is that "[n]o person can claim a vested right in any particular mode of procedure for the enforcement or defense of his rights.

1966Co., 219 Mo., 524 , 118 S.W. 40, 43 , is that "[n]o person can claim a vested right in any particular mode of procedure for the enforcement or defense of his rights.

2018Grab v. Dillon , 103 S.W.3d 228 , 234-36 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (noting that since its inception into Missouri law, "the rule" permitting exclusion of witnesses has been at discretion of trial court); Huffman v. State , 451 S.W.2d 21 , 23 (Mo. 1970) ("Appellant had no right to the enforcement of the rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom.

1993Id.

1992There the court stated that forum selection clauses do “not deprive the non-designated state of jurisdiction except to the extent that in its discretion it determines that the enforcement of the clause is neither unfair nor unreasonable.” 823 S.W.2d at 496 .

1992This argument was justified by M/S Bremen, GMBH v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), which made the point that the majority rule that enforces such clauses, so long as doing so is neither unfair nor unreasonable, does not deprive the non-designated state of jurisdiction except to the extent that in its discretion it determines that the enforcement of the clause is neither unfair nor unreasonable.

1992This argument was justified by M/S Bremen, GMBH v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), which made the point that the majority rule that enforces such clauses, so long as doing so is neither unfair nor unreasonable, does not deprive the non-designated state of jurisdiction except to the extent that in its discretion it determines that the enforcement of the clause is neither unfair nor unreasonable.

1987Louis Children’s Hospital, 687 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Mo. bane 1985); see also 37 Mo.Dig.2d, Statutes, Key No. 263 at 799; Danaher v. Smith, 666 S.W.2d 452 (Mo.App.1984) (enlarging class of persons as witnesses).

1986Nor does the federal constitution prevent a remedial or procedural provision from being applied retroactively because “although a vested cause of action is property ..., the [plaintiff] has no property, in the constitutional sense, in any particular form of remedy; all that he is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the preservation of his substantial right to redress by some effective procedure.” Gibbes v. Zimmerman, 290 U.S. 326, 332 , 54 S.Ct. 140, 142 , 78 L.Ed. 342 (1933).

1986Nor does the federal constitution prevent a remedial or procedural provision from being applied retroactively because “although a vested cause of action is property ..., the [plaintiff] has no property, in the constitutional sense, in any particular form of remedy; all that he is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the preservation of his substantial right to redress by some effective procedure.” Gibbes v. Zimmerman, 290 U.S. 326, 332 , 54 S.Ct. 140, 142 , 78 L.Ed. 342 (1933).

1961Bank, 191 Mo.App. 287 , 177 S.W. 1092 . *562 The rule as stated is followed in the majority of jurisdictions, though we must admit there is a lack of uniformity in the reasons given in the decisions for the enforcement of the rule.

1961Bank, 191 Mo.App. 287 , 177 S.W. 1092 . *562 The rule as stated is followed in the majority of jurisdictions, though we must admit there is a lack of uniformity in the reasons given in the decisions for the enforcement of the rule.

1954Being conscious, he must have known that the physicians were treating him for a bullet wound in the brain. “* * * We insist that no stronger case than this is likely to arise for the enforcement of the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Mattox Case, supra, [Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ] where it was said that the sense of impending death may be made to appear from what the injured person said, ‘or from the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted, being obviously such that he must have felt or known that he could no[t] surviv

1954Being conscious, he must have known that the physicians were treating him for a bullet wound in the brain. “* * * We insist that no stronger case than this is likely to arise for the enforcement of the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Mattox Case, supra, [Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ] where it was said that the sense of impending death may be made to appear from what the injured person said, ‘or from the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted, being obviously such that he must have felt or known that he could no[t] surviv

1951In Phillips v. Phillips, 50 Mo. 603 , the trial court quieted the title to' certain land in the plaintiff but this court, upon its own initiative, conditioned the relief to the plaintiff for the benefit of an infant defendant by imposing conditions similar to those imposed by the trial court in this case.

1951For the general situation, demanding the enforcement of the rule of estoppel, sée the following: Johnson v. Ferguson, 329 Mo. 363 , 44 S. W. (2d) 650 -653; State ex rel.

1951For the general situation, demanding the enforcement of the rule of estoppel, sée the following: Johnson v. Ferguson, 329 Mo. 363 , 44 S. W. (2d) 650 -653; State ex rel.

1951Consolidated School District No. 2 of Pike County v. Haid (Mo.) 41 S. W. (2d) 806 .

1939Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581 , 98 P. 1027 ; Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 156 Cal. 70 , 103 P. 324 .] In support of its right to an injunction plaintiff has relied very largely (as also did the court below) upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra, which likewise was a case in which the plaintiff, a concern engaged locally in the planing mill business, sought a decree enjoining the defendants, the then officers of the District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, from declaring and prosecuting a

1939Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581 , 98 P. 1027 ; Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 156 Cal. 70 , 103 P. 324 .] In support of its right to an injunction plaintiff has relied very largely (as also did the court below) upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra, which likewise was a case in which the plaintiff, a concern engaged locally in the planing mill business, sought a decree enjoining the defendants, the then officers of the District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, from declaring and prosecuting a

1939Any products of plaintiff bearing the union label would undoubtedly be handled and erected by union carpenters without question or objection; and so for want of proof of a malicious intent to injure plaintiff, and with threats, intimidation, and violence absent from the case, we think that defendant are not to be restrained from the enforcement of the rule which was only adopted by the members of the union for purposes deemed beneficial to themselves. [Bossert v. Dhury, 221 N.Y. 342 , 117 N.E. 582 ; J.F.

1939Any products of plaintiff bearing the union label would undoubtedly be handled and erected by union carpenters without question or objection; and so for want of proof of a malicious intent to injure plaintiff, and with threats, intimidation, and violence absent from the case, we think that defendant are not to be restrained from the enforcement of the rule which was only adopted by the members of the union for purposes deemed beneficial to themselves. [Bossert v. Dhury, 221 N.Y. 342 , 117 N.E. 582 ; J.F.

1939Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581 , 98 P. 1027 ; Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 156 Cal. 70 , 103 P. 324 .] In support of its right to an injunction plaintiff has relied very largely (as also did the court below) upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra, which likewise was a case in which the plaintiff, a concern engaged locally in the planing mill business, sought a decree enjoining the defendants, the then officers of the District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, from declaring and prosecuting a

1939Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581 , 98 P. 1027 ; Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 156 Cal. 70 , 103 P. 324 .] In support of its right to an injunction plaintiff has relied very largely (as also did the court below) upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra, which likewise was a case in which the plaintiff, a concern engaged locally in the planing mill business, sought a decree enjoining the defendants, the then officers of the District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, from declaring and prosecuting a

1937However, in most states as in this State the enforcement of this rule has been held to be a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. [64 C.J. 118, sec. 127; 26 R.C.L. 1058, sec. 65; State v. Compton, 317 Mo. 475 , 296 S.W. 137 ; Berberet v. Electric Park Amusement Co., 310 Mo. 655 , 276 S.W. 36 ; see, also, Id., 319 Mo. 275 , 3 S.W.2d 1025 ; State v. Sloan (Mo.), 186 S.W. 1002 .] We think this is the better view because it never has been considered necessary by courts or lawyers to enforce the rule in all cases, and it might be used to unnecessarily delay and obstruct trials.

1937However, in most states as in this State the enforcement of this rule has been held to be a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. [64 C.J. 118, sec. 127; 26 R.C.L. 1058, sec. 65; State v. Compton, 317 Mo. 475 , 296 S.W. 137 ; Berberet v. Electric Park Amusement Co., 310 Mo. 655 , 276 S.W. 36 ; see, also, Id., 319 Mo. 275 , 3 S.W.2d 1025 ; State v. Sloan (Mo.), 186 S.W. 1002 .] We think this is the better view because it never has been considered necessary by courts or lawyers to enforce the rule in all cases, and it might be used to unnecessarily delay and obstruct trials.

1934And in a sale of land, misrepresentations affecting the value of land by overstating the quantity are material, whether the sale was by the acre or in gross, as was ruled in the case of Leicher v. Keeney, 98 Mo. App. 394, 1 . c. 404, 72 S. W. 145 .

1934And in a sale of land, misrepresentations affecting the value of land by overstating the quantity are material, whether the sale was by the acre or in gross, as was ruled in the case of Leicher v. Keeney, 98 Mo. App. 394, 1 . c. 404, 72 S. W. 145 .

1923These rulings, the court held in Gantt v. Brown, 238 Mo. 560 , were not in harmony with the purpose of the statute, and that the enforcement of the rule as thus announced would fender contests of elections nugatory.