State ex rel. Sharp v. Romines

Supreme Court of Missouri

State ex rel. Sharp v. Romines

984 S.W.2d 500, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 4, 1999 WL 62753

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedFebruary 9, 1999

DocketNo. 81020

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 984 S.W.2d 500 (State ex rel. Sharp v. Romines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Sharp v. Romines, 984 S.W.2d 500, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 4, 1999 WL 62753 (Mo. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Relators filed a class action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. The petition asserts that the University of Missouri has charged tuition in violation of section 172.360, RSMo. A declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and refunds are the relief sought. The University of Missouri filed a motion asserting venue was improper in the city of St. Louis. The respondent judge found that venue was proper in St. Louis County but that St. Louis County was not a convenient forum for the suit. He, therefore, ordered the case transferred to Boone County. Rela-tors seek a writ from this Court prohibiting the transfer of this case to Boone County.

Missouri’s venue statutes do not permit an intrastate application of the doctrine of inconvenient forum. Anglim v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 832 S.W.2d 298, 302 (Mo. banc 1992). “The statutory designation of proper venue as the site where the cause of action accrued presupposes legislative determination that it cannot be overly inconvenient for a defendant to appear in that location.” Willman v. McMillen, 779 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Mo. banc 1989). Having found that the defendant in the underlying cause is subject to venue in St. Louis County, the respondent was not permitted to order the case transferred to another county on the basis of forum non conveniens.

[501]*501The preliminary order in prohibition is made permanent.

BENTON, C.J., and LIMBAUGH, COVINGTON, WHITE and WOLFF, JJ., and BARNEY and KAROHL, Special Judges, concur. PRICE and HOLSTEIN, JJ., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Relators filed a class action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. The petition asserts that the University of Missouri has charged tuition in violation of section 172.360, RSMo. A declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and refunds are the relief sought. The University of Missouri filed a motion asserting venue was improper in the city of St. Louis. The respondent judge found that venue was proper in St. Louis County but that St. Louis County was not a convenient forum for the suit. He, therefore, ordered the case transferred to Boone County. Rela-tors seek a writ from this Court prohibiting the transfer of this case to Boone County.

Missouri’s venue statutes do not permit an intrastate application of the doctrine of inconvenient forum. Anglim v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 832 S.W.2d 298, 302 (Mo. banc 1992). “The statutory designation of proper venue as the site where the cause of action accrued presupposes legislative determination that it cannot be overly inconvenient for a defendant to appear in that location.” Willman v. McMillen, 779 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Mo. banc 1989). Having found that the defendant in the underlying cause is subject to venue in St. Louis County, the respondent was not permitted to order the case transferred to another county on the basis of forum non conveniens.

[501]*501The preliminary order in prohibition is made permanent.

BENTON, C.J., and LIMBAUGH, COVINGTON, WHITE and WOLFF, JJ., and BARNEY and KAROHL, Special Judges, concur. PRICE and HOLSTEIN, JJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

984 S.W.2d 500, 1999 Mo. LEXIS 4, 1999 WL 62753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sharp-v-romines-mo-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack