Section 13.12 Venue

LibraryApp Ct Prac 2015 Supp

C. (§13.12) Venue

One of the most frequent uses of the writ of prohibition is to review a trial court’s decision on claims of lack of proper venue. Before the passage of § 476.410, RSMo 2000, the only relief the court could grant was the dismissal of a case for lack of venue. Now the court can transfer the case to a county of proper venue, if one exists in the state. The ability of a court to transfer venue, however, has introduced a new complication into the writ process. Once the trial court orders a case transferred to another county, it loses jurisdiction over it. In such a case, the proper respondent is the judge in the transferee county. State ex rel. Breckenridge v. Sweeney, 920 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Mo. banc 1996). If the transferee county is located in a different district from the transferor county, the writ should be sought in the appellate district where the transferee court is located because only that appellate court has any superintending power over the judge who has the case. State ex rel. Heaton v. Daugherty, 62 S.W.3d 102 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); State ex rel. Netco, Inc. v. Judah, 58 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); Mo. Const. art. V, § 4 (“[e]ach district of the court of appeals shall have general superintending control over all courts and tribunals in its jurisdiction,” the latter meaning its geographical jurisdiction). The Supreme Court, on the other hand, having general superintending power over all courts in the state, Mo. Const. art. V, § 4.1, may substitute the proper judicial officer as the respondent even if he or she is located in a different court of appeals district. State ex rel. Breckenridge, 920 S.W.2d at 904 (substituting judge in Butler County for judge in Greene County named in petition); State ex rel. Malone v. Mummert, 889 S.W.2d 822, 826–27 (Mo. banc 1994). The writ of prohibition provides the principal means by which the seemingly never-ending struggle over laying venue in the large urban counties of St. Louis and Kansas City takes place. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hines v. Calhoun, 220 S.W. 6 (Mo. banc 1920) (railroad challenged venue in St. Louis in Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51, et seq., action when accident occurred in Wyoming); State ex rel. Linthicum v. Calvin, 57 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Mo. banc 2001) (suggesting that “St. Louis city-county venue maneuvers” account for much of the caselaw on venue) (Wolff, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In Linthicum, 57 S.W.3d 855, the plaintiff first...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT