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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.140 (2026)

Defendant may move for dismissal of an action

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

  510.140.  Defendant may move for dismissal of an action — effect of motion. — For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with this code or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.  After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, or in the event that the motion is granted and the resulting judgment is later held erroneous, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.

­­--------

(L. 1943 p. 353 § 100)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1952–2007 · leading case: Preisler v. Doherty, 284 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Preisler v. Doherty, 284 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 16× “Intervenors have filed a motion for rehearing, as have defendants Secretary of State and Attorney General, contending that Section 510.140 (statutory references are to RSMo.”
Healer v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 251 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. 1952). · cites it 11× “" On September 21, plaintiff's motion to set aside was sustained in each case "and said cause was by the Court returned to the general docket." The judgments of dismissal, while not specifying that the dismissals were without prejudice, amounted to dismissals without *68…”
Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “The other violations of court orders involve plaintiffs’ failure to make parts of their sixth amended petition more definite. Whether these events are measured by the specific rule, Rule 55.”
Wyrozynski v. Nichols, 752 S.W.2d 433 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “Thus, in 1953, our Supreme Court said: A motion to dismiss filed by a defendant in an equity case at the close of plaintiffs evidence, under our practice before the new code, meant a submission of the case to the court_ Section 510.140 RSMo.1949, ... [now], authorizes such…”
Nickles v. Auntie Margaret Daycare, Corp., 829 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “Nevertheless, Auntie Margaret has asserted its right to present additional testimony under § 510.140 RSMo. For that reason, it is necessary to remand this case to permit Auntie Margaret the opportunity to present additional testimony.”
City of Jefferson v. Capital City Oil Co., 286 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 5× “See Section 510.140 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The city’s contention (a) would place upon the movant to dismiss for failure to prosecute with due diligence, the additional burden of proving that he had been injured by the unreasonable delay or that the opposing party had obtained some…”
State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Summit Inv. Co., LLC, 186 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “On April 19, 2005, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ cause of action for failure to prosecute per section 510.140. Appellants then filed a notice of intent to request a trial setting.”
Black v. Rite Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 239 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Defendant does not address this procedural issue, but rather, responds by addressing the underlying merits of its initial motion to dismiss, alleging the trial court properly dismissed Black’s petition because it failed to state a claim for relief.”
Emery v. Brown Shoe Co., 287 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 3× “Section 510.140 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Appellant here contends that the court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion for judgment and in dismissing plaintiff’s, petition with prejudice.”
M.P. Indus., Inc. v. Axelrod, 706 S.W.2d 589 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “02 and Section 510.140 RSMo.1978 under point six and then make unsupported assertions that the facts in the present case fall within the rule.”
Henze v. Shell Oil Co., 758 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “The grounds of the pretrial motion were: 1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and, 2) failure to state a cause of action.”
Mills v. Berry, 395 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 3× “” This plaintiff had the right to do. Section 510.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.