Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 509
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 509.310 (2026)

Motion for more definite statement or for a bill of particulars

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  509.310.  Motion for more definite statement or for a bill of particulars. — A party may move for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter contained in a petition, answer or reply which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleadings or to prepare generally for trial when a responsive pleading is not required.  If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within ten days after notice of the order, or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed, or make such order as it deems just.  A bill of particulars becomes a part of the pleading which it supplements.

­­--------

(L. 1943 p. 353 § 63)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1956–1990 · leading case: Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 8× “27(d) and § 509.310 RSMo 1969 (if pleading is not made more definite following court order to do so, “the court may strike the pleadings to which the motion was directed, or make such order as it deems just”) with Rule 55.”
Smith v. Lewis, 669 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “If a petition does not set out the particulars of evidence which will prove ultimate facts, such imperfections are to be reached by a motion for more definite statement or a bill of particulars under § 509.310, RSMo 1978 and not by a motion to dismiss.”
Picarella v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 316 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “Section 509.310 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Having failed to do so, she may not now complain.”
Fish v. Fish, 307 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 2× “9 Such frailties and imperfections are to be reached under our present code of civil procedure [Section 509.310], as formerly, 10 by motion to make more definite, but they do not render a petition fatally defective and subject to a motion to dismiss (which performs the same…”
Burke v. City of St. Louis, 349 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. 1961). “The record before us discloses no motion to make plaintiff’s petition more definite and certain or to strike any portion thereof (§§ 509.310, 509.320; Civil Rules 55.34, 55.”
Sansone v. Nat'l Food Stores, Inc., 352 S.W.2d 375 (Mo. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 3× “This rule is not new but appeared as Section 63 of the 1943 Code and Section 509.310 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. It is a very salutary rule of procedure but does not purport to change the substantive law.”
State Ex Rel. Ward v. Stubbs, 374 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. 1964). “The record before us discloses no motion to make plaintiff’s petition more definite and certain or to strike any portion thereof (§§ 509.310, 509.320; Civil Rules 55.34, 55.”
Wick v. Keshner, 326 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 3× “Section 509.310 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; Graves v.”
Parnas v. Universal-Engel Paper Box Co., 333 S.W.2d 316 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 3× “The reason for this is that under section 509.310 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., “a bill of particulars becomes a part of the pleading which it supplements.”
Martinez v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 296 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. 1956). “” Whatever the rule may be as to the burden of proof in Louisiana, in certain circumstances, this phase of the action, whether the plaintiffs’ petition or claim for relief contains a sufficient statement of the facts “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”, V.”
Rao v. Truman Med. Ctr., 786 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Judge Hanna’s July 25, 1988, order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss but requiring plaintiffs’ to make more definite paragraphs 8 and 9 within fifteen days resulted in defendant’s filing their December 9, 1988, motion to dismiss and Judge…”
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.