State ex rel. Douglas Sharp, et al., Relators, v. Honorable Kenneth M. Romines, Judge, Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Div. 10, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- State ex rel. Douglas Sharp, et al., Relators
- Respondent
- Honorable Kenneth M. Romines, Judge, Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Div. 10
Judges
Disposition
Transferred
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion
Case Style: State ex rel. Douglas Sharp, et al., Relators, v. Honorable Kenneth M. Romines, Judge, Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Div. 10, Respondent. Case Number: 81020 Handdown Date: 02/09/1999 Appeal From: Original Proceeding in Prohibition Counsel for Appellant: Robert Herman Counsel for Respondent: William F. Arnet, Marvin E. Wright and Phillip J. Hoskins Opinion Summary: The respondent judge found that venue for this suit against the University of Missouri was proper in St. Louis County, where it was filed, but transferred it to Boone County concluding St. Louis County was not a convenient forum. PRELIMINARY ORDER MADE PERMANENT. Court en banc holds: Having found St. Louis County was a proper venue, the court cannot transfer the case to another county based on the doctrine of an inconvenient forum. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: PRELIMINARY ORDER MADE PERMANENT. Benton, C.J., Limbaugh, Covington, White and Wolff, JJ., and Barney and Karohl, Sp.JJ., concur. Price and Holstein, JJ., not participating. Opinion: 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. Relators 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. The preliminary order in prohibition is made permanent. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 172.360cited
section 172.360, RSMo
Cases
- missouris venue statutes do not permit an intrastate application of the doctrine of inconvenient forum anglim v missouri pacific r co 832 sw2d 298cited
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
- willman v mcmillen 779 sw2d 583cited
Willman v. McMillen, 779 S.W.2d 583
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.