Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 510
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.090 (2026)

Application for continuance, how made

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

  510.090.  Application for continuance, how made. — Every application for a continuance shall, unless the adverse party consent that it be made orally in open court, be made by motion in writing, accompanied by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some other credible person, setting forth the facts on which the application is founded.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1087, A.L. 1943 p. 353 § 93)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 936; 1919 § 1386; 1909 § 1956

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1955–2017 · leading case: Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The Western District explored the “apparent object” of § 510.090 in Mansfield: The Wrongful Death Act has three objectives: -“to provide compensation to bereaved plaintiffs for their loss, to ensure that tortfeasors pay for the consequences of their actions, and generally to…”
Gail & Darrell Mansfield v. Caleb Horner & John Horner, 443 S.W.3d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “The last objective is the focus of section 510.090’s allowance for aggravating circumstance damages: to deter harmful conduct which might lead to death.”
Clinton v. Clinton, 444 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “Doyle was not an application for a continuance within the meaning of Section 510.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Savings Finance Corp.”
Sav. Fin. Corp. v. Blair, 280 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2× “Selleck,” presented orally without plaintiff’s consent, obviously was not an application for continuance within the meaning of Section 510.090 [McGinley v. McGinley, Mo.”
Krieber v. Krieber, 420 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 3× “Doyle was not an application for a continuance within the meaning of Section 510.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Savings Finance Corp v.”
Blessing v. Blessing, 539 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “471 ; no real “facts” were stated in the affidavit 4 as required by § 510.090 and Rule 65.03; and no particular facts as to what Mr.”
Carr v. Carr, 308 S.W.2d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “By the explicit terms of Section 510.090 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., “Every application for a continuance shall, unless the adverse party consents that it be made orally in open court, be made by motion in writing, accompanied by the affidavit of the applicant, or some other credible…”
Searles v. Searles, 495 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “In view of everything which had transpired, the court had already extended sufficient indulgence. Aside from everything else, there was no proper request in writing for a continuance supported by affidavit in accordance with the provisions of Rule 65.”
Evans v. Stegall, 716 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “This letter was received in the office of the defendant’s attorney three days before trial. The defendant’s attorney then relied upon his secretary to notify the court and the plaintiff’s counsel as to his being in Kansas City.”
Arky v. St. Louis Cnty. Producers' Mkt. Co., 312 S.W.2d 156 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “In his argument the appellant states that the court should have overruled the motion to dismiss and should have given the case “a pre-emptory setting” where the issues could have been determined.”
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.