516.130. What actions within three years. — Within three years:
(1) An action against a sheriff, coroner or other officer, upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution or otherwise;
(2) An action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, where the action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state;
(3) An action under section 290.300.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
84
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case:
Carman v. Wieland, 406 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
Carman v. Wieland, 406 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 41× “2 However, the trial court denied summary judgment on the other basis asserted in the motion, reasoning that the plaintiffs claims against the defendant did not involve a breach of a non-delegable duty owed by the employer to provide a safe workplace but rather alleged an…”
Yahne v. Pettis Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 73 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 18× “The Sheriff contended that the applicable limitation period was the three-year provision of § 516.130 for actions against a sheriff involving his official duty.”
Schwartz v. Bann-Cor Mortg., 197 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 18× “130) also provides the limitation period for “an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, where the action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state” (emphasis added). The respondents argue the applicability of section 516.”
Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Investors argues in its first point that the trial court erred in limiting Investors’ recovery to three years prior to the date of filing suit pursuant to section 516.130(1). It argues that the five-year limitation period set out in section 516.”
Gerken v. Sherman, 351 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “We further found that the trial court had erred in finding that the three-year statute of limitations in section 516.130 applied to Pensioners’ claims and reversed that determination.”
Chambers v. Nelson, 737 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 17× “For purposes of Sections 516.130 and 516.170 Chambers’ cause of action accrued at the time the alleged theft occurred on May 29, 1982.”
City of Ellisville v. Lohman, 972 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 9× “” On appeal, appellants contend the trial court erred in: (1) entering judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that the three year statute of limitations set out in Section 516.130, RSMo 1994 (all future references will be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise noted), barred their…”
Cmty. Bancshares, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 43 S.W.3d 821 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 6× “3 is restricted to refunds filed with the Director of Revenue (Director), not the Secretary, and their cause of action is still timely under section 516.130 as it did not accrue until the Secretary denied their refund claims on June 5,1998.”
Gerken v. Sherman, 276 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Section 516.130 says, “An action against a sheriff, coroner or other officer, upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an…”
Julian v. Burrus, 600 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 10× “030, supra, and gave rise to the cause of action provided by Section 408.”
Nitcher v. Newton Cnty. Jail, 751 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 11× “Section 516.130, RSMo 1978, provided: "Within three years: (1) An action against a sheriff, coroner or other officer, upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty_””
Williams v. Greene Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 94 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 10× “The trial court found the action was barred by reason of § 516.130. On appeal, Mr. Yahne asserted the trial court erred in holding § 516.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.130(1) — 23 cases
Carman v. Wieland, 406 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
“2 However, the trial court denied summary judgment on the other basis asserted in the motion, reasoning that the plaintiffs claims against the defendant did not involve a breach of a non-delegable duty owed by the employer to provide a safe workplace but rather alleged an…”
Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. 2007).
“Investors argues in its first point that the trial court erred in limiting Investors’ recovery to three years prior to the date of filing suit pursuant to section 516.130(1). It argues that the five-year limitation period set out in section 516.”
Chambers v. Nelson, 737 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
“For purposes of Sections 516.130 and 516.170 Chambers’ cause of action accrued at the time the alleged theft occurred on May 29, 1982.”
Yahne v. Pettis Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 73 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
“The Sheriff contended that the applicable limitation period was the three-year provision of § 516.130 for actions against a sheriff involving his official duty.”
Williams v. Greene Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 94 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
“The trial court found the action was barred by reason of § 516.130. On appeal, Mr. Yahne asserted the trial court erred in holding § 516.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.130(2) — 16 cases
Schwartz v. Bann-Cor Mortg., 197 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
“130) also provides the limitation period for “an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, where the action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state” (emphasis added). The respondents argue the applicability of section 516.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.130(3) — 1 case
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.