510.280. Motion for directed verdict. — The demurrer to the evidence and the request for peremptory instructions are abolished and in lieu thereof a party may make a motion for a directed verdict. A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. Upon motion for directed verdict by a party opposing a claim the court, whether so requested or not, may dismiss the claim without prejudice if justice so requires.
Notes of Decisions
Paige Parr, a minor, by & through her Conservator, Janett Waid, Jerimy Morehead, & Charles Parr v. Charles Breeden, Wendy Cogdill, & Melanie Buttry, 489 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Section 510.280, RSMo 2000, provides: “The demurrer to the evidence .”
Hays v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 304 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. 1957).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff contends that Section 510.280 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., does not provide for a motion for directed verdict prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, and therefore, the trial court was without authority to direct a verdict on the opening statement.”
Perry v. Dever, 303 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1957).
· cites it 6× “Section 510.280 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Plaintiff appealed and contends she made a submissible case on defendant's duty to have stopped, slowed or swerved his automobile or sounded a timely warning under the humanitarian doctrine.”
Abel v. Campbell 66 Express, Inc., 378 S.W.2d 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
· cites it 5× “Section 510.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. This motion may be again directed to the attention of the court after verdict.”
Wyrozynski v. Nichols, 752 S.W.2d 433 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “These provisions are now found in § 510.280 RSMo.1986 and also in Rule 72.01(a).”
Davis v. Nash Cent. Motors, 332 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960).
· cites it 3× “However, its second assignment is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.”
Gibson Ex Rel. Gibson v. Newhouse, 402 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1966).
· cites it 2× “The right of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case is recognized in § 510.280 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. In Rothweiler v.”
Robbins v. Robbins, 328 S.W.2d 552 (Mo. 1959).
“He offered no motion for a directed verdict at any time (§ 510.280) but offered, and the court gave Instruction No.”
Lindsay v. McLaughlin, 311 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 1958).
· cites it 2× “, which is identical with our Section 510.280 and 510.290, that unless the defendant filed a motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, he could not raise the question of submissibility on appeal.”
Heideman v. Lorenz, 349 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. 1961).
· cites it 3× “; §§ 510.280 and 510.290. She, as indicated above, submitted her case to the jury on the theory that defendant was negligent in failing to exercise the highest degree of care to keep a lookout for the automobile in which plaintiff was riding and proximate causation.”
Marr v. Marr, 319 S.W.2d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959).
· cites it 3× “50 under Section 510.280 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.” On the same page the court then quoted from Ukman v.”
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.