 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Director of Revenue v. Gaertner12/5/2000
s to revocations under Section 577.041." Romans, 783 S.W.2d at 896.
E.
Having determined that Barnes filed his petition in the wrong county, we must next decide upon an appropriate disposition for this appeal. In Collins & Associates Dietary Consultants, Inc. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n, 724 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. banc 1987), we held that a court which is not statutorily vested with review authority does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Where a statute places the authority to judicially review an administrative decision in the circuit court of a particular county, a question of subject matter jurisdiction rather than venue is involved. . . . The only recourse of a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction of a cause is dismissal of the cause. Collins, 724 S.W.2d at 244-45.
Subsequent to Collins, the legislature enacted section 476.410, which provides that " he division of a circuit court in which a case is filed laying venue in the wrong division or wrong circuit shall transfer the case to any division or circuit in which it could have been brought." Section 476.410, RSMo 1994. This new section appears to grant a limited jurisdiction to the circuit court to transfer any case filed in an improper venue to any circuit court otherwise designated by the legislature to hear the particular matter. Accordingly, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County is vested with jurisdiction only to transfer this case to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
III. Conclusion
We make our preliminary writ of prohibition absolute and order the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to transfer this case to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis consistent with section 476.410, RSMo 1994.
All concur.
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|