Section 13.12 Venue

• Library: App 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...