Case law

State v. Keller

471 S.W.2d 196 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 11, 1971

State v. Craig, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 618, 621 . The State failed to meet this burden. … In State v.

State v. Garner

481 S.W.2d 237 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 12, 1972

Brown, Mo.Sup., 443 S.W.2d 805 , and that the giving of the instruction along with other instructions was authorized under State v. Brown, supra. … The claimed error in the language of the instruction will not be considered under the plain error rule, particularly in view of the denial in State v. Brown, supra, of the same contention here advanced.

Birmingham Ex Rel. Birmingham v. Kansas City Public Service Co.

361 Mo. 458 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1950

In the McEwen case 1 cited by appellant, the plaintiff was struck by an automobile while attempting to board a streetcar. … Appellant contends it was competent and fully explained its failure to call the eastbound bus driver as a witness-citing Fleishman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 163 Mo. App. 416, 423-4 (4, 5), 143 SW. 881, and Brown v.

State Ex Rel. Tompkins v. Shipman

290 Mo. 65 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 8, 1921

We are cited to Trust Co. v. Schramm, 269 Mo. 489 ; Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. l. c. 357; Bond & Ins. Co. v. Chorn, 274 Mo. l. c. 29; Amer. Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 270 Mo. 40 . … The Schramm case simply rules that where the State Board of Equalization has fixed the value of property for taxation, the county or city boards have no power to increase such valuation.

Field v. Natl. City Bank of St. Louis

343 Mo. 419 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 19, 1938

elected Anderson to fill the vacancy on the board and as president. … We further note that plaintiff's Instruction No. 3 authorizing the jury to disregard the release seems to have the same defect as those criticized in Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo. App. 508 , 142 S.W. 1082 , and Link v.

State ex rel. Schmoll v. Drabelle

261 Mo. 515 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 24, 1914

[Rex v. Arundel, 80 Eng. Rep. (full reprint) 258; Edinburgh Ry. Co. v. Wauchope, 8 Cl. & F. 710; Lon. and Can. L. & A. Co. v. R. M. of Morris, 7 Manitoba, 128.]” … [State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 327 .]

State v. Owens

486 S.W.2d 462 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 13, 1972

In State v. … State v. Phillips, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 431 ; State v. Sykes, Mo., 436 S.W.2d 32 ; State v. Stancliff, Mo., 467 S.W.2d 26 .

Cossitt v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.

224 Mo. 97 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1909

[Turner v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 501 ; Meyer v. Chambers, 68 Mo. 626 ; Olmstead v. Smith, 87 Mo. 602 .] … In Brown v.

Federal Reserve Bank v. Millspaugh

314 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 9, 1926

Bank v. Brightwell, 148 Mo. 358 ; First Natl. Bank v. Sanford, 62 Mo. App. 394 ; Harrison v. Smith, 83 Mo. *11 210; Federal Reserve Bank v. Bohannan, 127 S. E. … Bank v. First Natl. Bank, 187 S. W. (Ark.) l. c. 674 and cases; Brown v. Sheldon State Bank, 139 Iowa, 83 ; Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond v. Peters, 123 S. E. (Va.) 379.] III.

Turner Looker Co. v. Hindman

298 Mo. 61 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 6, 1923

[Dobbins v. Edmonds, 18 Mo. App. 307 ; Crown Vinegar Spice Co. v. Wehrs, 59 Mo. App. 493 ; St. Louis Range Co. v. Kline-Drummond Merc. Co., 120 Mo. App. 438 ; Black River Lbr. Co. v. Warner, 93 Mo. 374 , 386; Oehler v. … Small, C., concurs; Brown, C., not sitting.

King v. Swenson

423 S.W.2d 699 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 8, 1968

This distinguishes the instant situation from that in United States v. Brown. … See also Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, supra, 81 S.Ct. at page 1406 [29].

State v. Sanders

522 S.W.3d 212 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 11, 2017

Hill and Zonia Brown. Ms. Brown told police Mr. Sanders and Ms. Hill were involved in a violent fight at the motel. The police arrested and questioned Mr. Sanders. Mr. … Brown testified she and Ms. Hill agreed to have sex with Mr. Sanders in exchange for crack cocaine. An argument ensued when Mr. Sanders provided what Ms. Brown and Ms.

State v. Taylor

726 S.W.2d 335 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 17, 1987

Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 668 , 101 S.Ct. 2070, 2083 , 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981); Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 461-63 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 722-23 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981). … In dealing with a forcible rape statute, the Colorado Supreme Court held its marital exception to be constitutional in People v. Brown, 632 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Colo.1981) and People v. Flowers, 644 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982).

Winston v. REORGANIZED SCH. DIST. R-2, ETC.

636 S.W.2d 324 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 2, 1982

Crane v. Riehn, 568 S.W.2d 525, 528-29 (Mo. banc 1978); GEM Stores, Inc. v. O’Brien, 374 S.W.2d 109, 117 (Mo. banc 1963); Stanhope, supra 280 N.W.2d at 719 ; Brown v. … Even so, compare Brown v. Wichita State University, supra, and Frazier v. Alum Crest, supra.

Seibert v. City of Columbia

461 S.W.2d 808 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1970

Three cases are cited in support of that doctrine, i. e., Powell v. City of Joplin, supra, Drainage Dist. No. 1 Reformed of Stoddard County v. Matthews, 361 Mo. 286 , 234 S.W.2d 567 , and Hixson v. … Brown v. Bibb, 356 Mo. 148 , 201 S.W.2d 370, 374 .

Pennington v. Stanton

125 Mo. 658 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1894

containing about ninety-one acres, to the defendant, William Stanton, party of the second part, for the following consideration and agreement expressed in said deed, to wit: “In consideration of the sum of $1 and the care, board … Brown, who had known her from her youth up, said that he never .thought her really capable of doing business, and, upon being immediately asked what was the matter with her, proceeded to describe her physical condition.

State Ex Rel. Fielder v. Kirkwood

345 Mo. 1089 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 2, 1940

The relator was unloading the pipe when the floor of the car broke because of decayed floor boards causing the relator to be injured. He brought suit in the Circuit Court of St. … General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 330 Mo. 220 , 48 S. W. (2d) 857 .] Mandamus is the proper remedy here. We have heretofore decided that mandamus is a proper remedy in a case involving similar facts.

Folk v. City of St. Louis

250 Mo. 116 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 20, 1913

[Roanoke v. Berkowitz, 80 Va. 616 , l. c. 623; State ex rel. v. Board of Liquidators, 28 La. Ann. 121 ; City of Mount Vernon v. State ex rel., 71 Ohio St. 428 .] … [Lucas v. Brown, 127 Mo. App. 645 , l. c. 653.]

Sneathen v. Sneathen

104 Mo. 201 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1891

Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 506 ; Standiford v. Standiford, 97 Mo. 231 ; Tiedeman on Real Prop., sec. 814. … Tobin v. Bass, 85 Mo. 654 ; Standiford v. Standiford, supra; Tiedeman on Real Prop., sec. 814. *211 There is nothing in the cases of Huey v. Huey, 65 Mo. 689 , and Hammerslough v.

Community Bancshares, Inc. v. Secretary of State

43 S.W.3d 821 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 2001

Missouri State Board of Mediation, 690 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Mo. banc 1985); Kansas City v. Missouri Com’n on Human Rights, 632 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Mo. banc 1982); M.V. Marine Co. v. … Missouri Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 731 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.App. 1987); and Brown-Forman Distillers Cotp. v. Stewart, 520 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1975). 9 . Mary Transport Co. et al. v.