Case law

Kostman v. Pine Lawn Bank & Trust Co.

540 S.W.2d 72 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 13, 1976

“State v. … Rouveyrol v.

State Ex Rel. St. Francois County School District R—III v. Lalumondier

518 S.W.2d 638 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 10, 1975

Co. v. … City of Sioux Falls v. State Board of Equalization, 203 N.W.2d 419, 420 (S.D.1973).

Glidewell v. Hughey

314 S.W.2d 749 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 14, 1958

Moore v. … V.

State ex inf. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Investment Ass'n

142 Mo. 325 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 19, 1898

legislature to take it away, and it will not be intended that a legislative enactment was designed to take such jurisdiction away, although such enactment should confer another and distinct remedy upon some inferior court or board … Circuit Attorney v. Bernoudy, 36 Mo. 279 ; State ex rel. Brown v. McMillan, 108 Mo. 153 .

Noel v. Roberts

449 S.W.2d 572 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 9, 1970

Plaintiff cites Sperry v. Hurd, 267 Mo. 628 , 185 S.W. 170 ; Skadal v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 351 S.W.2d 684 ; Peak v. W. T. Grant Company, Mo.App., 386 S.W.2d 685 ; Beggs v. Universal C.I.T. … Yours very truly, Compton & Brown By: /s/ Roy W. Brown Roy W.

Howie v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

360 Mo. 771 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1950

Co. v. Felgenhauer, 168 F. (2d) 12, l. c. 16 (4,5); Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 394 Ill. 569 , 69 N. E. (2d) 293; Brown v. Illinois Terminal Co., 319 Ill. 326 , 150 N. E. 242 ; Robertson v. … v.

State v. Harris

477 S.W.2d 42 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 22, 1972

State v. Lowe, supra. … State v. Brown, 115 Mo. 409 , 22 S.W. 367 . The court gave an instruction which adequately covered the issue and was not required to accept that offered by the defendant. State v.

Sullenger v. Cooke Sales & Service Co.

646 S.W.2d 85 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 23, 1983

Huttegger v. Davis, 599 S.W.2d 506, 511 (Mo. banc 1980); Heit-man v. Brown Group, Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Mo.App.1982). … For example, Denton v. Brown, 634 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Civ.App.1982) and Frontier Mobile Homes v.

State Ex Rel. Kugler v. Tillatson

312 S.W.2d 753 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 14, 1958

Richardson v. … Fowler v. McKown, 315 Mo. 1336 , 290 S.W. 123 . Appellants have briefed certain other supposed defects in the petition, as found by the Board. One is that it was addressed to the Clerk, rather than to the Board.

Goins v. Melton

343 Mo. 413 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 19, 1938

It is alleged in the motion that the opinion is in conflict with Section 3112, Revised Statutes 1929, and in conflict with the holding in Sims v. Brown (Div. 2), 252 Mo. 58 , 158 S.W. 624 . … Able counsel for appellant say in their suggestions in support of the motion that "from beginning to end of this appeal" Sims v. Brown has been relied upon. It is true that in Sims v.

Morrell v. Harris

418 S.W.2d 20 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 10, 1967

Ruedlinger v. Long, Mo.App., 283 S.W.2d 889 . … Antoine v. Fletcher, Mo.App., 307 S.W.2d 898, 904, 907 . See also Antoine v. McCaffery, Mo.App., 335 S.W.2d 474 , in which a board member was removed under this provision, and State ex rel. Brokaw v.

Laura Salamun v. The Camden County Clerk, Respondents; and Gail Griswold v. Miller County

Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 25, 2024

Challengers rely on Ruggeri v. City of St. Louis, 429 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. 1968), and State ex rel. Board of Control of St. Louis School & Museum of Fine Arts v. City of St. … Earth Island Inst. v. Union Elec.

Hagen v. Celotex Corp.

816 S.W.2d 667 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 10, 1991

As reviewed information, one of the textbooks, Brown’s, for all practical purposes all fibers would be viewed the same. … Fibre-board argued instead that its product was not unreasonably dangerous, but the jury did not agree. The evidence clearly established the dangers of exposure to asbestos. See School District of Independence v. U.S.

State ex rel. Zoological Park Subdistrict of the City of St. Louis v. Jordan

521 S.W.2d 369 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 10, 1975

The court *372 also ruled in favor of the District Board on Counts II and III. The basic rule of construction of a statute is to seek the intention of the legislature, Julian v. … King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S.W.2d 547 (1947).

State Ex Rel. Lane v. Corneli

351 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 4, 1943

Lemon v. Buchanan County Board of Equalization, 108 Mo. 235 , 18 S. W. 782 . The latter case was discussed in State ex rel. Harrison County Bank v. Springer, 134 Mo. 212 , 35 S. … Van Raalte v. Board of Equalization, 256 Mo. 455 , 165 S. W. 1047 .

Craig v. Jo B. Gardner, Inc.

586 S.W.2d 316 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1979

in his judgment against Burlington Northern 1 and, if so, can the Board do so without payment of a portion of Gardner’s attorney’s fees. … The $2,514.60 allowed the Board came out of Craig’s share, not Gardner’s.

State v. Young

427 S.W.2d 510 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 13, 1968

In this connection, relying on California cases (People v. Villalobos, 245 Cal.App.2d 561 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 60 ; People v. … State v. Virdure, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 196, 202 .

State ex rel. School District Number One v. Andrae

216 Mo. 617 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 25, 1909

J., in State ex rel. v. … [State ex rel. v. Job, 205 Mo. 1 . c. 33; State ex rel. v. Gribson, 78 Mo. App. 170 ; School District v. Pace, 113 Mo. App. 141 .]

Haseltine v. Central National Bank

155 Mo. 66 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 14, 1900

Justice Harlan delivered the opinion in the McBroom case and also in the Brown case, and in the Brown case he cites and reaffirms the McBroom case. … This is all that the Brown ease decides.

Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. McPherson

35 Mo. 13 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1864

(All Saints Church v. Davis, 1 Hall, N. Y., 191; John et al. v. Farm. & Mech. Bk. of Ind., 2 Blackf. 867 ; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94 .) 2. As to the invalidity of the calls. … (Trust. of Vernon Soc. v. Hills, 6 Cow. 23 ; All Saints Ch. v. Lovett, 1 Hall, N. Y., 198-9 ; John et al. v. Farm. & Mech. Bk. of Ind., 2 Blackf. 367 ; Ang. & Ames on Corp., 3d ed., 104-5.)