516.140. What actions within two years. — Within two years: an action for libel, slander, injurious falsehood, assault, battery, false imprisonment, criminal conversation, malicious prosecution or actions brought under section 290.140. An action by an employee for the payment of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation or liquidated damages by reason of the nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime compensation, and for the recovery of any amount under and by virtue of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and amendments thereto, such act being an act of Congress, shall be brought within two years after the cause accrued.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. BP Prods. North Am. Inc. v. Ross, 163 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. 2005).
· cites it 19× “BP claimed that summary judgment was improperly denied as to the plaintiffs’ claims of injurious falsehood because those claims were filed out *924 side the two-year statute of limitations in section 516.140, RSMo 2000. 3 This Court issued a preliminary writ.”
Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. 1968).
· cites it 33× “[9] The language was the same in the 1949 revision, § 516.140, RSMo 1949. [10] Laws of Missouri, 1919, pp.”
Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 16× “Prior to 1976, the medical malpractice limitation statute was section 516.140, RSMo 1969 (original version enacted in 1921 as section 1319a).”
Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Doctor argues Farrow’s defamation claim is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 516.140. In order to prevail on a defamation claim, Farrow must establish: “1) publication, 2) of a defamatory statement, *599 8) that identifies the plaintiff, 4) that is false,…”
Drury v. Missouri Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 558 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “In his separate appeal, McCrary argues the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to Drury’s claim for personal injuries against him because her claim was barred by the expiration of the two-year…”
Forry v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 889 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 21× “As to Forry’s Count II, the breach of contract count, respondents argued that this count is also limited by the two-year state statute of limitations, section 516.140, RSMo 1986. Finally, as to Forry’s Count III, the quantum meruit claim, respondents argued that in order for…”
State ex rel. Brad Halsey, Relator v. The Honorable Jennifer M. Phillips, 576 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. 2019).
· cites it 5× “140, 3 the statute of limitations for assault and battery claims is two years and Dachenhausen filed suit almost five years after the conduct was alleged to have occurred; and (2) the conduct Dachenhausen alleged to support her claims for intentional and negligent infliction of…”
Sheehan v. Sheehan, 901 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1995).
· cites it 8× “Prior to August 28, 1989, two statutes of limitation controlled claims for childhood sexual abuse by a family member: § 516.140 RSMo 1986, the two-year statute for assault or battery, and § 516.”
Rowland v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 666 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 8× “The defendant pleaded the bar of the statute of limitations, relying on that portion of then § 516.140, RSMo 1959, relating to health providers and reading as follows: All actions against physicians, surgeons, dentists, roentgenologists, nurses, hospitals and sanitariums for…”
Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broad. Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. 1986).
· cites it 6× “[2] In its motion to dismiss, respondent asserts that the action is (1) barred by the statute of limitations, § 516.140, RSMo 1978; (2) the petition alleges a tort not recognized in Missouri for inaccurate reporting; (3) appellant failed to plead special damages essential to a…”
Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 5× “banc 1968), this Court, in construing section 516.140, RSMo 1959, held that a plaintiffs medical malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitation despite the claim that the injury — a foreign object left in the plaintiffs back following a surgery in 1951 — could not…”
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.