510.130. Voluntary dismissal — new trial. — 1. A plaintiff shall be allowed to dismiss his action without prejudice at any time before the same is finally submitted to the jury, or to the court sitting as a jury, or to the court, and not afterward. A plaintiff who has once so dismissed his action and thereafter files another action upon the same claim shall not be allowed to dismiss the same without prejudice after the jury has been impaneled, or after evidence has been introduced in a nonjury case, except
(1) Upon filing a stipulation to that effect signed by the opposite party; or
(2) On order of the court made on special motion in which the ground for said dismissal shall be set forth and which shall be supported by affidavit.
2. No party, who has been granted a dismissal at his request after an adverse ruling of the trial court preventing a recovery on his part, shall as a matter of right be granted more than one new trial or more than one appeal on the ground that the adverse ruling of the trial court preventing a recovery on his part was erroneous.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. McKenzie, 754 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Stubblefield is not controlling because it was interpreting section 510.130, RSMo Supp. 1943, which required a court order for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.”
Smith v. Taylor, 289 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956).
· cites it 7× “Section 510.130 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., provides: “A plaintiff shall be allowed to dismiss his action without prejudice at any time before the same is finally submitted to the jury, or to the court sitting as a jury, or to the court, and not afterward.”
May v. Bradford, 369 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. 1963).
· cites it 3× “Since our view is that the defendant Bradford has suffered no legal prejudice in these circumstances, we need not examine the evidence to determine if a submissible case was established against the defendant Mann at the time the motion for directed verdict was offered and…”
Stubblefield v. Seals, 485 S.W.2d 126 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “140: “We think the law is well settled that the right to dismiss a cause of action without prejudice under section 510.130 V.A.M.S., is not an absolute right.”
State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. Nangle, 280 S.W.2d 96 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 4× “Even under our old procedure, at least when court was in session, a case was not actually dismissed until there was an order of dismissal.”
Harrison v. Weisbrod, 358 S.W.2d 277 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 3× “01, which is the same as Section 510.130 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., to-wit: “A plaintiff shall be allowed to dismiss his action without prejudice at any time before the same is finally submitted to the jury, or to the court sitting as a jury, or to the court, and not afterwards.”
McCormick v. Cupp, 106 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
“280 (no signature requirement); § 510.130 (same). Cf. § 944 (1939) ("Every petition or other pleading and motion shall be signed by the party or his attorney.”
Ctr. Sch. Dist. No. 58 of Jackson Cnty. v. Kenton, 345 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 2× “2d 134 , supports their contention that plaintiffs had no right to dismiss without prejudice after final submission, citing § 510.130 of the Code of Civil Procedure (S.”
State Ex Rel. Keeling v. Randall, 386 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. 1964).
· cites it 2× “As to dismissal without prejudice, it has been said, “We think the law is well settled that the right to dismiss a cause of action without prejudice under section 510.130, V.A.M.S., is not an absolute right.”
Mills v. Berry, 395 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 3× “Upon the jury being waived the case was triable before the court and when the parties plaintiff and defendant appeared pursuant to a setting of the cause and the Court indicated that he was ready to hear the case, it became the duty of plaintiff either to ask for a continuance…”
Ryan v. Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., 276 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff Ryan in the case filed in Boone County Circuit Court had the right to dismiss his case. Only a general denial and an application for a change of venue had been filed to his petition when he notified the court that he desired to dismiss without prejudice.”
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.