491.030. Adverse party may be compelled to testify in civil cases. — Any party to any civil action or proceeding may compel any adverse party, or any person for whose immediate and adverse benefit such action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, to testify as a witness in his behalf, in the same manner and subject to the same rules as other witnesses; provided, that the party so called to testify may be examined by the opposite party, under the rules applicable to the cross-examination of witnesses.
Notes of Decisions
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 8× “In Wells we held that an adverse party called as a witness under § 491.030, RSMo 1959 [now found at § 491.”
Wells v. Goforth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiff called defendant George Goforth as an adverse witness under § 491.030, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and plaintiff's Exhibit 20 was identified by defendant George Goforth as the written statement taken from him before trial.”
Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982 (Mo. 1952).
· cites it 9× “They say they should have been permitted to cross-examine this witness under Section 491.030, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and that letters written by her (which are not set forth in the transcript filed by contestants) should have been admitted in evidence as "admissions.”
Bartleman v. Humphrey, 441 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 8× “Under Section 491.030, V.A.M.S., respondent called Phil Dysart who, at trial, had been with M.”
Care & Treatment of Bernat v. State, 194 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 4× “[5] Section 491.030 states: Any party to any civil action or proceeding may compel any adverse party .”
Frank v. Wabash R.R. Co., 295 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. 1956).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff sought to “cross-examine” Murphy concerning the statements made by him in the application to show “his credibility” and “as affecting Murphy’s disposition to speak the truth.”
Salmon Ex Rel. Salmon v. Brookshire, 301 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 3× “The defendant was called by plaintiff for cross-examination under Section 491.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. He testified that he was a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, with a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree; was a former State Senator; a former superintendent of…”
Tweedy v. Dir. of Revenue, 412 S.W.3d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Although an adverse party may be compelled to testify in a civil matter, Section 491.030, RSMo. (2000), a witness has a constitutional right not to testify against himself in a civil proceeding where his *399 answers might incriminate him in a future criminal proceeding.”
Smith v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “to testify as a witness in his *123 behalf, in the same manner and subject to the same rales as other witnesses; provided, that the party so called to testify may be examined by the opposite party, under the rales applicable to the cross-examination of witnesses.”
Shepard v. Harris, 329 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Inasmuch, however, as there is no contention that plaintiffs did not make a submissible case in so far as concerns defendant’s negligence, we shall here discuss only that evidence which is pertinent to defendant’s contention that as a matter of law plaintiffs’ decedent was…”
Gibson Ex Rel. Gibson v. Newhouse, 402 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1966).
· cites it 3× “Section 491.030 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. They may request of defendants the admission of facts and of genuineness of documents.”
Donnelly v. Goforth, 284 S.W.2d 462 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 3× “Section 491.030 RSMo 1949, *465 V.A.M.S. But, clearly the answer, had it been completed, would not have been responsive to the question, and, furthermore, it is doubtful that the completed answer would have been admissible.”
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.