State of Missouri ex rel. Polaris Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James K. Journey, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1206

In 2004 Tonna Cummings’s husband died in an ATV accident; Cummings filed a wrongful-death suit against Polaris in March 2005 (Original Action).
In November 2011 the Bates County circuit judge entered an order placing the Original Action on the court’s inactive docket and stating the case would be dismissed without prejudice if not removed within 60 days.
No motion to remove the case was filed by the 60th day (January 2, 2012); a docket entry dated January 10, 2012 records: “Dismiss by Ct w/o Prejudice.”
Cummings refiled (Second Action) in January 2013; Polaris moved for judgment on the pleadings (treated as summary judgment) arguing the savings statute did not save the refiled suit because the nonsuit occurred on January 2, 2012 and the one-year refiling window had expired.
The trial court denied Polaris’s motion; Polaris sought a writ of prohibition from the appellate court to compel grant of summary judgment.
The appellate court concluded Polaris failed to show a clear and unequivocal right to prohibition because a factual question existed whether the court’s January 10 docket entry constituted an order making dismissal effective that later date and the trial court retained jurisdiction to act on an involuntary dismissal.

Issue	Cummings' Argument	Polaris' Argument	Held
Whether the Original Action’s dismissal was effective Jan. 2, 2012	The dismissal became effective only when the court made the January 10 docket entry (nonsuit date Jan. 10)	The Nov. 3 order made dismissal automatic after 60 days, so dismissal was effective Jan. 2 and the court lost jurisdiction	Court: unresolved factual issue; trial court retained jurisdiction and January 10 entry could be an order making dismissal effective that date
Whether the savings statute permitted refiling within one year	Cummings: savings statute applies because dismissal was a nonsuit effective Jan. 10, 2012, so Jan. 2013 refiling was timely	Polaris: dismissal was Jan. 2, 2012 so refiling Jan. 2013 was untimely	Court: cannot decide as a matter of law on current record; factual dispute precludes prohibition
Whether an unsigned docket entry can constitute a court order	Cummings: docket entry was necessary clerical act and not an order	Polaris: docket entry was ministerial and a nullity if dismissal was automatic earlier	Court: unsigned typewritten docket entries can be orders under Rule 74.02; entry could reflect court direction
Whether appellate prohibition was appropriate to compel summary judgment	Cummings: trial court did not err in denying motion given factual dispute	Polaris: writ appropriate because second suit is barred by statute of limitations	Held: writ quashed—Polaris failed to show clear and unequivocal right to relief

State ex rel. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Dowd, 432 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2014) (standards for prohibition writs)
State ex rel. Beisly v. Perigo, 469 S.W.3d 434 (Mo. banc 2015) (prohibition appropriate to prevent trial of time-barred action)
State ex rel. Heart of Am. Council v. McKenzie, 484 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2016) (writs and summary judgment in limitations contexts)
Zinke v. Orskog, 422 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (savings statute and nonsuit definition)
Peet v. Randolph, 103 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (distinction between voluntary and involuntary dismissals and court jurisdiction)
Norfolk v. State, 200 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (unsigned docket entries can qualify as orders under Rule 74.02)
Garner v. Dir. of Revenue, 893 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (use of court records to determine intended dismissal date)
Rickner v. Golfinopoulos, 271 S.W.3d 32 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (voluntary-dismissal principles; cited for contrast)