510.020. Interrogatories to parties. — 1. Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer, director, partner or managing agent thereof competent to testify in its behalf.
2. The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. The answers shall be signed by the person making them; and the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the interrogatories within fifteen days after the delivery of the interrogatories, unless the court, on motion and notice and for good cause shown, enlarges or shortens the time.
3. Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections are determined, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable.
4. No party may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Craig, 329 S.W.2d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959).
· cites it 6× “, is coextensive with that permitted on depositions and that discovery of matters inadmissible in evidence is not authorized, even though such matters might aid the inquiring party in preparing for trial. 3 So, numerous cases evidence the fact that, in simple recognition and…”
Johnson v. Cox, 262 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 5× “The question asked clearly sought the disclosure of hearsay information.”
Silver v. Westlake, 248 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. 1952).
· cites it 5× “(2) Some months prior to trial, plaintiff had interrogated defendant as authorized by Section 510.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., asking for the names and addresses of all persons whose names were obtained by defendant or his employee at the scene of the accident, and for the names and…”
State Ex Rel. Hudson v. Ginn, 374 S.W.2d 34 (Mo. 1964).
· cites it 6× “* * * Principal changes in Section 85 of the 1943 Code (Section 510.020, RSMo 1949) are as follows: (1) The scope of discovery is broadened; * * (5) copies of statements given by the interrogating party, and of writings and photographs, not privileged, may be discovered unless…”
State Ex Rel. Pete Rhodes Supply Co. v. Crain, 373 S.W.2d 38 (Mo. 1963).
· cites it 4× “01, pretrial right of discovery by means of written interrogatories was governed by statute, § 510.020, R.S.Mo 1959, V.A.M.S. Under the provisions of that statute we had deemed it necessary to hold: "It seems clear from the foregoing cases, that the names of witnesses to an…”
Warner v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 257 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 3× “(relating to production of documentary evidence on the taking of a deposition)-; Section 510.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. (relating to interrogatories); and Section 510.”
State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 2× “But apart from their character we know of no authority permitting a defendant in a criminal case to require the state to answer interrogatories such as were submitted here and none has been cited.”
State Ex Rel. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co. v. McMillian, 351 S.W.2d 22 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 3× “” Defendant, relator herq, objected upon the grounds that the interrogatory was not within the scope of Section 510.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. as interpreted, that plaintiff was not entitled to the information sought, and that such material was a part of defendant’s work product…”
Franklin v. Franklin, 283 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. 1955).
“The essential question presented is whether, after refusing to answer certain interrogatories propounded to her under the discovery provisions of the civil code, § § 510.020' and 510.060 RSMo 1949, Y.A.M.S.”
Davis v. Illinois Terminal R.R., 291 S.W.2d 891 (Mo. 1956).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff’s contention that the admission of the depositions of defendant’s witnesses Bailey and Ham was prejudicially erroneous is predicated upon defendant’s answer to a pretrial interrogatory propounded to it under the provisions of Section 510.020 RSMo 1949, V.Á.M.S. That…”
Johnson v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 251 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. 1952).
“2d 519, 529-531 , was sustained by a majority of the court mainly because it was in answer to opposing counsel’s argument.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.020(2) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.020(3) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.020(4) — 1 case
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.