The Missouri Supreme Court recently abrogated the concept in the law that a granting of a summary judgment by a trial court be considered an “Extreme and Drastic Remedy” when a court is considering such a motion. The “Extreme and Drastic Remedy” standard had been reinforced for many years and set the standard with respect a trial courts analysis of summary judgment motions. The Court held in Wilkinson v. Farmers Holding Companies S.W.3d 93 (Mo. banc 2026) that to the extent courts had previously suggested that summary judgment was an extreme and drastic remedy, those cases were not to be followed. This decision should reinforce that summary judgment is a viable tool when there is no material issue of genuine fact and should be considered as any other motion that is provided for under the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Wilkinson case involves an employee who sued his employer after the employer terminated him. Pursuant to Missouri law the employee sent a certified letter to “Farmer Holding Co.” (Farmers) requesting a service letter and sued Farmers when he did not receive the letter. Farmers moved for summary judgment stating that Wilkinson did not send the letter to or sue his actual employer. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.
Wilkinson then appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court stated that Mr. Wilkinson’s point of error, that summary judgment is an extreme and drastic remedy and there were genuine issues of material fact were not a basis for overruling the trial court decision. The Court emphatically stated that summary judgment is no longer to be considered an “extreme and drastic remedy”. The court pointed out that it had previous to the Wilkinson matter abrogated the concept that a trial court was required to apply the rule that when there was the “slightest doubt” as to whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted the motion should be overruled. The Court held that any prior opinion or opinions of any court in Missouri suggesting that summary judgement was an extreme and drastic remedy were abrogated and not to be followed. The Court stated that if the undisputed facts entitle a party to judgment as a matter of law, then judgment should be entered. Mr. Wilkinson failed to elicit any material facts to contravene the defendant’s statement of material facts therefore Farmers was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The case removes the higher burden for sustaining a motion for summary judgment and should encourage defendants to file such motions when the facts support such a motion and provides the trial court with more leeway in granting the motions and entering judgment for the defendant. The court also points out that in opposing a motion for summary judgment the opposing party must strictly comply with the rules when submitting or responding to a motion for summary judgment, which includes the uncontroverted facts. Failing to provide ultimate facts that contravene the defendants’ facts will compel a trial court to grant such a motion. The courts have also recently noted that the mere submission of deposition testimony as a material fact does not aid the court in identifying the material facts or the genuine issues from the testimony that refutes defendants’ submission of material facts. Turubchuk v. Boock, 2026 WL 932955 (Mo.App. E.D. 2026)
The Supreme Court and Appellate courts have recently been finding favor in the sustaining of trial courts granting summary judgements, which is a substantial change in approach from the recent history of summary judgments in Missouri.