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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.100 (2026)

Applications for a continuance on account of absence of witnesses shall show what

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

  510.100.  Applications for a continuance on account of absence of witnesses shall show what. — Applications for a continuance on account of the absence of witnesses or their evidence shall show

  (1)  The facts showing the materiality of the evidence sought to be obtained and due diligence upon the part of the applicant to obtain such witness or testimony;

  (2)  The name and residence of such witness, if known, or, if not known, the use of diligence to obtain the same, and also facts showing reasonable grounds of belief that the attendance or testimony of such witness will be procured at the date to which the action may be continued or set for trial;

  (3)  What particular facts the affiant believes the witness will prove, and that he knows of no other person whose evidence or attendance he could have procured at the trial, by whom he can prove or so fully prove the same facts;

  (4)  That such witness is not absent by the connivance, consent, or procurement of the applicant, and such application is not made for vexation or delay, but in good faith for the purpose of obtaining a fair and impartial trial.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1090, A.L. 1943 p. 353 § 94)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 939; 1919 § 1389; 1909 § 1959

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1968–1976 · leading case: Blessing v. Blessing, 539 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blessing v. Blessing, 539 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “Blessing would prove were stated in violation of § 510.100 and Rule 56.04. 5 A trial judge is under no obligation to seek out a physician to determine whether the party or a witness is suffering from an illness.”
Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. 1968). “This section (§ 1887), as amended became §• 1317, RSMo 1919; now § 510.100.”
State v. Baker, 548 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Assignment IV was cured when the allegedly prejudicial language in the original information was omitted from the amended information upon which defendant was tried.”
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.