Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.230 (2026)

Further savings in cases of nonsuits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

516.230. Further savings in cases of nonsuits. — If any action shall have been commenced within the times respectively prescribed in sections 516.010 to 516.370, and the plaintiff therein suffer a nonsuit, or, after a verdict for him, the judgment be arrested, or, after a judgment for him, the same be reversed on appeal or error, such plaintiff may commence a new action from time to time, within one year after such nonsuit suffered or such judgment arrested or reversed; and if the cause of action survive or descend to his heirs, or survive to his executors or administrators, they may, in like manner, commence a new action within the time herein allowed to such plaintiff, or, if no executor or administrator be qualified, then within one year after letters testamentary or of administration shall have been granted to him.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 1026)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 874; 1919 § 1329; 1909 § 1900

(1977) Dismissal without prejudice is a species of nonsuit and action could be commenced within one year from such dismissal. State ex rel. Buchanan County v. Roach (A.), 548 S.W.2d 206.

(1978) So-called "savings statute" concerning right to reinstate suit within one year after original suit is voluntarily nonsuited is not a general procedural statute and its action is limited to causes of action prescribed by statute. Stine v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Company (A.), 564 S.W.2d 619.

(1985) Savings provision was held not to apply where first action was filed outside Missouri. King v. Nashua Corp. (8th Cir.), 763 F.2d 332.

(1985) Reversal and remand for a new trial does not constitute reversal for purposes of invoking the one-year savings provision. Sanders v. Daniel Intern Corp. 616 F.Supp. 127 (D.C. Mo.).

(1986) One-year refiling period provided by this section applies only to actions commenced in Missouri. Mizokami Bros. of Arizona, Inc. v. Mobay Chemical Corp. 798 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 163 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Rebecca J. Davison v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 449 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rebecca J. Davison v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 449 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 52× “Davison asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing her action as time barred because the savings statute, section 516.230, 1 permitted her suit to be re-filed within a year of its voluntary dismissal.”

State ex rel. Goldsworthy v. Kanatzar, 543 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. 2018). · cites it 12× “100 is consistent with longstanding precedent interpreting nearly identical language in section 516.230, a one-year savings statute for nonsuits of actions subject to the general statutes of limitations in Chapter 516.”

Smith v. Tang, 926 S.W.2d 716 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 28× “A personal or real action filed after the limitations period may be saved by application of the savings statute, § 516.230 RSMo 1994. In addition an amendment filed after the limitations period may relate back to the original pleading pursuant to Rule 55.”

Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, (Consol. with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 430 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 7× “100, RSMo 2000, or section 516.230, RSMo 2000. 19 . As discussed previously, the plaintiffs could not benefit from the savings provisions in sections 516.”

Devitre v. Orthopedic Ctr. of Saint Louis, LLC, 349 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 6× “Devitre refiled his lawsuit within the time permitted by section 516.230, RSMo 2000, the one-year savings statute.”

Zinke v. Orskog, 422 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “Section 516.230 RSMo, commonly referred to as the “savings statute,” provides that, if the plaintiff suffers a “nonsuit,” he may refile his action within one year after the nonsuit.”

White v. Tariq, 299 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.230 (2000); Kirby v. Gaub, 75 S.”

Muzingo v. Vaught, 887 S.W.2d 693 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 22× “Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in entering the order of dismissal because they filed the Missouri action within one year following dismissal of the Kansas action, the Kansas action was commenced within the five-year limitation contained in § 516.”

Rosenfeld v. Thoele, 28 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Section 516.230 RSMo (1994) allows a plaintiff who has suffered a “nonsuit,” e.”

Grady v. Amrep, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “In her third point on appeal, Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis of the one-year savings statute because the voluntary dismissal document was facially contradictory and the corresponding docket entry supported…”

Ostermueller v. Potter, 868 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 6× “The circuit court dismissed the second petition with prejudice, stating that the cause of action was filed outside the statute of limitations and that the one-year “savings statute,” § 516.230, RSMo 1986, did not apply. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed.”

Vilsick v. Fibreboard Corp., 861 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “Louis dismissing with prejudice their petition for wrongful death for failure to refile the petition within the one-year “savings” statute, § 516.230 RSMo 1986. We affirm. *661 Plaintiffs’ petition, filed March 25, 1992, sought damages on negligence and products liability…”

Show all 163 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.230(1994) — 1 case

Thornton v. Deaconess Med. Ctr.-West Campus, 929 S.W.2d 872 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

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.