479.200. Appeals, trial de novo. — 1. In any case tried before a municipal judge who is not licensed to practice law in this state, the defendant shall have a right to trial de novo, even from a plea of guilty, before a circuit judge or an associate circuit judge.
2. In any case tried before a municipal judge who is licensed to practice law in this state or before an associate circuit judge, except where there has been a plea of guilty or the case has been tried with a jury, the defendant shall have a right of trial de novo before a circuit judge or upon assignment before an associate circuit judge. An application for a trial de novo shall be filed within ten days after judgment and shall be filed in such form and perfected in such manner as provided by supreme court rule.
3. In any case tried with a jury before an associate circuit judge a record shall be made and appeals may be had upon that record to the appropriate appellate court.
4. The supreme court may provide by rule what record shall be kept and may provide that it be a stenographic record or one made by the utilization of electronic, magnetic, or mechanical sound or video recording devices.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Estill v. Iannone, 687 S.W.2d 172 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 12× “She subsequently was convicted of all three counts in a consolidated non-jury trial in the Kansas City Municipal Division of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.”
City of Kansas City v. Dudley, 244 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “The circuit court determined that Dudley was not entitled to a trial de novo under Section 479.200, 1 because he stipulated to the City’s record and, therefore, was never “tried” in municipal court.”
City of Springfield v. Belt, 307 S.W.3d 649 (Mo. 2010).
· cites it 5× “Analysis Belt argues that because he was charged with a municipal ordinance violation for which a fine was assessed and was “tried” before a person who is a municipal judge, he is entitled to a trial de novo under section 479.200, RSMo 2000. 7 The city responds that because it…”
James E. Bright v. John Mollenkamp, 482 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “This Court reversed, holding Section 479.200 (allowing defendants aggrieved in municipal judgments to request trial de novo in circuit court) was applicable to the Director as the defendant in the expungement action.”
Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Section 479.200. 5 Because the Cusumanos have an adequate remedy at law, the trial court did not err in dismissing their cause of action for declaratory judgment.”
Edwards v. City of Ellisville, 426 S.W.3d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Section 479.200. 3 Because the Annins and the Cusumanos have an adequate remedy at law, the trial court did not err in dismissing their cause of action for declaratory judgment.”
Dir. of Revenue v. Klenke, 988 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Director contends Section 479.200 allows defendants the right to seek in circuit court a trial de novo of a municipal court judgment.”
State ex rel. Bennett v. Gagne, 623 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Appellant contends that these cases are inapplicable because statutory provisions upon which those cases turn were repealed by the Court Reform and Revision Act of 1978, and particularly because § 479.200(2), RSMo 1978, excepts from the right of appeal and trial de novo before a…”
Duly v. Heflin, 873 S.W.2d 932 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “2 Section 479.200, RSMo 1986, gives the circuit court jurisdiction over municipal court appeals.”
City of Kansas City v. Rule, 673 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “In ac *23 cordance with § 479.200, RSMo 1978, 1 appellant requested a trial de novo before a jury.”
City of Lake Winnebago v. Sharp, 652 S.W.2d 118 (Mo. 1983).
· cites it 2× “78 and § 479.200, RSMo 1978, and that such compliance was *120 necessary to confer jurisdiction of the cases on the circuit court, the city moved the circuit court to remand the cases to the municipal division.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.200(2): 3 cases
State ex rel. Bennett v. Gagne, 623 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
“Appellant contends that these cases are inapplicable because statutory provisions upon which those cases turn were repealed by the Court Reform and Revision Act of 1978, and particularly because § 479.200(2), RSMo 1978, excepts from the right of appeal and trial de novo before a…”
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.