Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.180 (2026)
Actions pending, how affected by repeal of law
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1.180. Actions pending, how affected by repeal of law. — No action or plea pending at the time any statutory provisions are repealed shall be affected by the repeal; but the same shall proceed, in all respects, as if the statutory provisions had not been repealed, except that all proceedings had after the repeal becomes effective are governed by procedural rules and laws then in effect, insofar as they are applicable.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 662, A.L. 1957 p. 587)
Prior revisions: 1929 § 662; 1919 § 7065; 1909 § 8064
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1961–2019 · leading case: Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). “170 and § 1.180 does not confine the operation of those sections to the preservation of "vested rights.”
State v. Thornton, 651 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “The Session Laws of 1957 amended § 1.180 RSMo 1978 by omitting reference to criminal cases.”
Kocherov v. Kocherov, 775 S.W.2d 539 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). “170 and § 1.180, RSMo 1986, prevent the support payments from being terminated.”
Arie v. Intertherm, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “§ 1.180 provides that no action or plea, pending at the time any statutory provisions are repealed, shall be affected by the repeal; but the same shall proceed, in all respects as if the statutory provisions had not been repealed, except that all proceedings had after the repeal…”
Keeran v. Myers, 172 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “1 were wholly procedural and section 1.180 specifically provides that “all proceedings had after the repeal becomes effective are governed by procedural rules and laws then in effect.”
Brooks v. Cooksey, 427 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. 1968). “150 to § 1.180, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., inclusive. These general statutes determine how the repeal of any statutory provisions affects any act, right, or proceeding and the procedure which may be applicable.”
State v. Crow, 600 S.W.2d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). “Bloom, supra, is not controlling because the Supreme Court did not consider § 1.180. That opinion did not expressly mention § 1.”
State v. Harris, 612 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “Appellant contends that the Second Offender Act is procedural in nature; and because it has been repealed and replaced by § 558.016, RSMo 1978, authorizing extended terms for dangerous offenders, the old maximum terms of fifty years do not apply.”
State v. Arteaga, 304 S.W.3d 296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Pursuant to section 1.180, RSMo 2000, Arteaga’s requests for costs against the prosecutor would not be governed by the now-repealed section 550.”
State v. Williams, 343 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1961). “” Consult § 1.180 (Laws 1957, p. 592). Defendant was not entitled to have his motion to strike the allegations invoking the Habitual Criminal Act from the indictment sustained.”
State ex rel. Cooper v. Randall, 630 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “160 to reduce a criminal penalty enacted by the Code [presumably a one-term probation limit], the operation of the § 1.180 provision— that proceedings under a statute after a repeal are governed by “procedural rules and laws then in effect” [presumably a one-term probation…”
Rogers v. Stanec, 927 S.W.2d 422 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “RSMo § 1.180 (1994) provides: No action or plea, pending at the time any statutory provisions are repealed, shall be affected by the repeal; but the same shall proceed, in all respects, as if the statutory provisions had not been repealed, .”
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.