Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 1
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.150 (2026)

Repealing law repealed, former law not revived, when

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  1.150.  Repealing law repealed, former law not revived, when. — When a law repealing a former law, clause or provision is itself repealed, it does not revive the former law, clause or provision, unless it is otherwise expressly provided; nor shall any law repealing any former law, clause or provision abate, annul or in any wise affect any proceedings had or commenced under or by virtue of the law so repealed, but the same is as effectual and shall be proceeded on to final judgment and termination as if the repealing law had not passed, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 658, A.L. 1957 p. 587)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 658; 1919 § 7061; 1909 § 8060

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: In re the Care & Treatment of Spencer, 123 S.W.3d 166 (Mo. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Care & Treatment of Spencer, 123 S.W.3d 166 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 12× “Spencer contends that section 1.150 requires the application *169 of the law at the time in which the civil action was initiated.”
City of Kirkwood v. Allen, 399 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1966). · cites it 12× “2d: "The defendant also relies upon § 1.150, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., as authority for the proposition that a change in the law shall not affect pending matters unless it is otherwise expressly provided.”
Darrah v. Foster, 355 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. 1962). · cites it 2× “The defendant also relies upon § 1.150, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., as authority for the proposition that a change in the law shall not affect pending matters unless it is otherwise expressly provided.”
State ex rel. Rsch. Med. Ctr. v. Peters, 631 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “The mandamus plaintiffs [defendants in the original action] argue that the cause of action of the Peace mother or children accrued on June 6, 1979, when Everett Peace died and that the provisions of §§ 537.”
Brooks v. Cooksey, 427 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. 1968). “020, and the affect thereof are generally determined by the application of § 1.150 to § 1.180, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., inclusive.”
State v. Chadeayne, 313 S.W.2d 757 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “” Parenthetically, section 1.150 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. which, among other things, provides “When a law repealing a former law, clause or provision shall be itself repealed, it shall not be construed to revive such former law, clause or provision, unless it be otherwise expressly…”
Atchison v. Ret. Bd. of Police Ret. Sys. of Kansas City, 343 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. 1961). “(It is not true as appellants suggest, that the repeal of the previous law “left no statutory basis for the payment of pensions to previously retired police officers,” or left appellants’ rights “subject to speculation.”
State ex rel. Hutson v. McHaney, 629 S.W.2d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “See § 1.150. However, even assuming such a rule could repeal a statute, former Rule 30 was not in such irreconcilable conflict with § 545.”
Sherice Renee Miller-Weaver v. Dieomatic Inc., 657 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). “Under § 1.150, new statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless “otherwise expressly provided.”
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.