Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.371 (2026)

Limitation on action for sexual contact by certain persons

✓ current as of May 2026

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

516.371. Limitation on action for sexual contact by certain persons. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, there shall be a ten-year statute of limitation on any action for damages for personal injury caused to an individual by a person within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity who subjects such individual to sexual contact, as defined in section 566.010.

--------

(L. 1989 S.B. 420 § 1)

CROSS REFERENCES:

Childhood sexual abuse damage action, time limitation on bringing action after August 28, 1990, 537.046

Prosecution for sexual offenses involving person seventeen or under to be commenced within ten years of offense, 556.037

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1994–2004 · leading case: Straub v. Tull, 128 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Straub v. Tull, 128 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 24× “He asserts that section 516.371, RSMo Cum. Supp.1989, which authorizes recovery for damages for victims of incest, contains a ten year statute of limitations, which had already passed at the time this matter was filed with the trial court.”

Ridder v. Hibsch, 94 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 23× “■ To appropriately address Plaintiffs’ arguments, we must consider various statutes of limitations, including § 516.371, RSMo Supp.1999, to which Plaintiffs draw our attention.”

Swartz v. Swartz, 887 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 14× “First, they cite § 516.371, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, which provides a ten-year statute of limitations.”

Harris v. Hollingsworth, 150 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] Section 516.371, which provides that the limitation on actions for incest shall be ten years, does not enter into our analysis because it was not enacted until 1989, by which time the claims were already barred.”

Sheehan v. Sheehan, 901 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1995). · cites it 4× “Another recent statute, § 516.371, states in total: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, there shall be a ten-year statute of limitation on any action for damages for personal injury caused to an individual by a person within the third degree of affinity or…”

K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 8× “The trial court further concluded that because statutes extending the limitation of actions involving child sexual abuse, §§ 516.371 and 537.046, became effective after the battery limitations period had expired, those statutes did not revive the battery cause of action.”

Mullins v. Est. of Corbin, 66 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “370, we would note that § 516.371 provides for a ten-year statute of limitations for actions for damages for personal injuries caused by sexual abuse by a person related within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity.”

State v. Rains, 49 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “” In support of its position State points to the ten year statute of limitations in Section 516.371 RSMo 1994, which applies to civil personal injury lawsuits involving sexual contact with a minor child; as opposed to the two year time limitation in Section 516.”

H.R.B. v. J.L.G., 913 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “RSMo § 516.371 provides an action for familial sexual abuse, and went into effect August 28, 1989.”

Kg v. Rtr, 918 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 8× “The trial court further concluded that because statutes extending the limitation of actions involving child sexual abuse, §§ 516.371 and 537.046, became effective after the battery limitations period had expired, those statutes did not revive the battery cause of action.”

Hrb v. Jlg, 913 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “NOTES [1] The petition named the archdiocese and the archbishop as separate parties, but the two are treated as one and the same in the trial court's judgment and by the parties on appeal.”

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.