State ex. rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, No. SC 88464.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtStephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Citation236 S.W.3d 630
PartiesSTATE of Missouri ex rel. CITY OF JENNINGS, Missouri, Relator, v. The Honorable John J. RILEY, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. SC 88464.
Decision Date30 October 2007
236 S.W.3d 630
STATE of Missouri ex rel. CITY OF JENNINGS, Missouri, Relator,
v.
The Honorable John J. RILEY, Respondent.
No. SC 88464.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
October 30, 2007.

W. Dudley McCarter, Edward V. Crites, Timothy J. Reichardt, St. Louis, MO, for Relator.

Donald L. Schlapprizzi, Harold L. Whitfield, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., Judge.


This case presents the question of where venue lies to bring a tort action against a municipality. Relator, City of Jennings, is a defendant in an underlying wrongful death action filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and based on the alleged negligence of a Jennings police officer. Decedent was killed in an automobile collision following a high speed chase in which the police officer pursued decedent from Jennings (located in St. Louis County) to the City of St. Louis, where the collision occurred. Relator filed a motion to transfer venue from the City of St. Louis to St. Louis County, which the circuit

236 S.W.3d 631

court overruled, but relator then filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the transfer, and the court of appeals issued its alternative writ. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. The standard of review for writs of mandamus and prohibition, including those pertaining to motions to transfer venue, is abuse of discretion, and an abuse of discretion occurs where the circuit court fails to follow applicable statutes. State ex rel. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. David, 158 S.W.3d 232 (Mo. banc 2005). Having determined that the circuit court correctly followed the applicable venue statutes, the alternative writ is now quashed.

I.

Resolution of this case requires examination of two venue statutes that, on their face and standing in isolation, both purport to apply to the case at hand. Section 508.050, RSMo 2000, states in pertinent part:

Suits against municipal corporations as defendant or codefendant shall be commenced only in the county in which the municipal corporation is situated . . . .

In contrast, section 508.010.4, RSMo Supp. 2005, states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, in all actions in which there is any count alleging a tort and in which the plaintiff was first injured in the state of Missouri, venue shall be in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action.

(emphasis added). Under section 508.050, venue against the City of Jennings is only proper in St. Louis County because that is where the City is located, but under section 508.010.4, venue against the City of Jennings is only proper in St. Louis City because that is where the plaintiff was injured. The question,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, No. SC 96704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Febbraio 2019
    ...contain the prefatory language, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law...." In State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 632 (Mo. banc 2007), this Court explained the significance of this language:[T]o say that a statute applies ‘notwithstanding any other prov......
  • Lollar v. Lollar, No. SC 97984
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 1 Settembre 2020
    ...banc 2018) ; U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affs. v. Boresi , 396 S.W.3d 356, 359 (Mo. banc 2013) ; State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 631 (Mo. banc 2007) ; Meyer ex rel. Coplin v. Fluor Corp. , 220 S.W.3d 712, 715, 720 (Mo. banc 2007) ; S.M.S. v. J.B.S. , 588 S.W.3d 473, 493......
  • State ex rel. W.Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Burnside, No. 15–1112
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 13 Giugno 2016
    ...statutory directive applying “notwithstanding any other provision of law” is mandatory); cf. State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 632 (Mo. 2007) (en banc) (“[T]o say that a statute applies ‘notwithstanding any other provision of the law’ is to say that no other provisio......
  • U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, No. SC 92541.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Aprile 2013
    ...court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630, 631 (Mo. banc 2007). See also State ex rel. Taylor v. Meiners, 309 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Mo.App.2010); State ex rel. Rosenberg v. Jarrett, 233 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, No. SC 96704
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Febbraio 2019
    ...contain the prefatory language, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law...." In State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 632 (Mo. banc 2007), this Court explained the significance of this language:[T]o say that a statute applies ‘notwithstanding any other prov......
  • Lollar v. Lollar, No. SC 97984
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 1 Settembre 2020
    ...banc 2018) ; U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affs. v. Boresi , 396 S.W.3d 356, 359 (Mo. banc 2013) ; State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 631 (Mo. banc 2007) ; Meyer ex rel. Coplin v. Fluor Corp. , 220 S.W.3d 712, 715, 720 (Mo. banc 2007) ; S.M.S. v. J.B.S. , 588 S.W.3d 473, 493......
  • State ex rel. W.Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Burnside, No. 15–1112
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 13 Giugno 2016
    ...statutory directive applying “notwithstanding any other provision of law” is mandatory); cf. State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley , 236 S.W.3d 630, 632 (Mo. 2007) (en banc) (“[T]o say that a statute applies ‘notwithstanding any other provision of the law’ is to say that no other provisio......
  • U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, No. SC 92541.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Aprile 2013
    ...court reviews the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630, 631 (Mo. banc 2007). See also State ex rel. Taylor v. Meiners, 309 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Mo.App.2010); State ex rel. Rosenberg v. Jarrett, 233 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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