491.090. Summons of witnesses — procedure — consequences of failure to appear. — 1. In all cases where witnesses are required to attend the trial in any cause in any court of record, a summons shall be issued by the clerk of the court wherein the matter is pending, or by some notary public of the county wherein such trial shall be had, stating the day and place when and where the witnesses are to appear.
2. The witness shall be required to attend a trial from time to time, and from term to term, until the case be disposed of or the witness is finally discharged by the court. The witness shall be liable to attachment for any default or failure to appear as a witness at the trial and adjudged to pay the costs. Costs shall not be allowed for any subsequent recognizance or subpoena for the witness.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Rowland Grp., Inc. v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Production of documents at trial is governed by §§ 491.090 and 491.100. Although the judgment debtor examination is a supplementary proceeding, if the court determines a subpoena duces tecum should issue, §§ 491.”
State Ex Rel. R. W. Filkey, Inc. v. Scott, 407 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 3× “Thus Section 491.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. provides that in all cases where witnesses are required to attend the trial in any cause in any court of record, a summons shall be issued by the clerk of the court.”
Harrison v. Weisbrod, 358 S.W.2d 277 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 2× “Upon objection to his testimony in regard to the collision under Section 491.090 V.A.M.S., he was prevented from testifying.”
Jones v. Kansas City Area Transp. Auth., 769 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
“120, RSMo 1986, and addressed only to “Kansas City Area Transportation,” § 491.090. The subpoena was properly quashed for failure to comply with procedural mandates, State v.”
State ex rel. Long v. Askren, 874 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“Once the trial court *474 determines a subpoena duces tecum should issue, sections 491.090 and 491.100, which govern compulsory documentary production, apply.”
State ex rel. Anderson v. Hess, 709 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
“-395 indicates that the advisory opinion of the court is to be based upon the testimonial evidence of the judgment debtors and the judgment creditor, and we do not believe that §§ 491.090 and 491.100, RSMo 1978, are applicable here insofar as they provide for the issuance of…”
State ex rel. Ellis v. Schroeder, 663 S.W.2d 766 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “This section, as well as most of Chapter 491, 1 applies only to witnesses at trial, not at depositions.”
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.