Legal Opinion · Dissent

Muzingo v. Vaught

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 17, 1994No. 19454Published

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

  1. Morris v. WiseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
  2. Enid Allen v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  3. Clarice King v. Nashua Corporation and H.S. CrockerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  4. Riley v. Union Pac. R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
  5. Cook v. BrittAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API