Muzingo v. Vaught
Missouri Court of Appeals
1DissentShrum, Chief Judge
I respectfully dissent.
As stated in the majority opinion, a “savings statute” has long been part of Missouri’s law. Historically, our supreme court has stated that such legislation is to be applied in a “spirit of liberality.” Wetmore v. Crouch, 188 Mo. 647, 87 S.W. 954, 955 (1905). In describing its “liberal tendency ... in construing this law,” the Wetmore court said:
“[I]t has practically been held that the word ‘non-suit’ in the section involved means any judgment of discontinuance or dismissal whereby the merits are left untouched, thus discarding all technical niceties ... of the word…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Morris v. WiseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
- Enid Allen v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Clarice King v. Nashua Corporation and H.S. CrockerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- Riley v. Union Pac. R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Cook v. BrittAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.