Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Traci Stubblefield timely filed an application for change of judge on the same day the case was set for trial on the merits. The court made its preliminary writ of prohibition absolute and overruled contrary authority to the extent it held that rescheduling a trial date does not affect the filing period for disqualification.
Holdings
- An application for change of judge filed on the same day that the case is set for trial on the merits is timely under Rule 126.01b.
- When a judge fails to disqualify upon a proper and timely application for disqualification, the judge lacks jurisdiction and prohibition lies.
- To the extent In the Interest of A.H. holds that rescheduling a trial date does not affect the time for filing an application for change of judge, it is overruled.
Questions Presented
- Whether an application for change of judge filed on the same day that a trial on the merits is set is timely under Rule 126.01b.
- Whether prohibition should issue when the trial judge denies a timely application for change of judge.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (6)
- State ex rel. Horton v. House, 646 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Mo. banc 1983)(followed)
- State ex rel. Raack v. Kohn, 720 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Mo. banc 1986)(followed)
- State ex rel. Cohen v. Riley, 994 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Mo. banc 1999)(followed)
- State v. Stovall, 784 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Mo. App. 1990)(followed)
- In the Interest of M.S.M., 666 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo. App. 1984)(distinguished)
- In the Interest of A.H., 963 S.W.2d 374, 382-83 (Mo. App. 1998)(overruled)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…