Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.010 (2026)

Common law in force

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  1.010.  Common law in force — effect on statutes — failure to render health care services, no common law cause of action. — 1.  The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, but no act of the general assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that it is in derogation of, or in conflict with, the common law, or with such statutes or acts of parliament; but all acts of the general assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof.

  2.  The general assembly expressly excludes from this section the common law of England as it relates to claims arising out of the rendering of or failure to render health care services by a health care provider, it being the intent of the general assembly to replace those claims with statutory causes of action.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 645, A.L. 1957 p. 587, A.L. 2015 S.B. 239)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 645; 1919 § 7048; 1909 § 8047

(1953) Fact that statute changed a rule of common law does not require that it be strictly construed.  Steggall v. Morris, 363 Mo. 1224, 258 S.W.2d 577.

(1977) Assuming doctrine of sovereign immunity was part of common law adopted by state of Missouri, supreme court has authority to alter or abrogate it and did so. Jones v. State Highway Commission (Mo.), 557 S.W.2d 225.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. 2008).
State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 10× “[2] See Section 1.010, RSMo 2000 ("The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution…”
Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. 2010). · cites it 10× “Section 1.010, RSMo 2000. Joseph Fred Benson, Reception of the Common Law in Missouri: Section 1.”
O'Dell Ex Rel. O'Dell v. Sch. Dist. of Indep., 521 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. 1975). · cites it 36× “It is now a part of § 1.010, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. "When Missouri came into the Union of the states under its first Constitution, it brought with it the common law which it had adopted as a territory in 1816.”
Kilmer v. Hui Chan Mun, 17 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. 2000). · cites it 22× “1 declares, "It has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, as declared in section 1.010, RSMo, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of…”
Custer v. Hartford Ins. Co., 174 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “Section 1.010, RSMo 2000. Words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense, but technical words and phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be understood according to their technical import.”
State of Missouri ex rel. Bob T. Beisly II, Relator v. The Honorable Timothy Perigo, 469 S.W.3d 434 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 12× “This Court acknowledged these common law maxims were adopted expressly as Missouri law and later codified by section 1.010, the common law reception statute.”
Jones v. State High. Comm'n, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. 1977). · cites it 6× “[3] We are led to the conclusion that our § 1.010, RSMo 1969, which adopted the common law of England prior to 1607, the fourth year of the reign of James I, did not adopt the English common law as a substantive statute, but rather as decisional law.”
State Ex Rel. Leonardi v. Sherry, 137 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 4× “180-89 (1881) (discussing concurrent jurisdiction of courts in mixed claims at law and in equity); Joseph Fred Benson, Reception of the Common Law in Missouri: Section 1.010 as Interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, 67 Mo.”
State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEY, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “The territorial law provisions on jury trials, enacted at the time the territory of Missouri was a federal enclave, reflect the 7th Amendment that made the jury trial right the norm after cessation of the civil law systems that were in effect during French and Spanish rule.”
The Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Sherrell Constr., Inc., 476 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Article I, § 1.010. 6 property” that is damaged by other unrelated public entities, either by ignoring the word “private,” by defining “private” to include “public,” or by adding by implication the word “public” because there is no good policy reason why just compensation…”
State v. Bouse, 150 S.W.3d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Section 1.010, RSMo 2000. The General Assembly abrogated the common law when, on January 1, 1979, it repealed § 563.”
Matter of Est. of Bloomer, 620 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. 1981). · cites it 10× “Section 1.010, RSMo 1978, after adopting the common law and statutes and acts of parliament of England, provides by an amendment adopted in 1917 (Laws of Missouri 1917, p.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.