Case law

Becker v. City of Washington

94 Mo. 375 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1887

These are all necessarily implied in the allegation that the ordinance was duly passed (Werth v. … When he is-absent the board may elect an acting president, and in such cases when the board passes an ordinance the acting president of the board -should sign it in order to-authenticate the action of the board to the mayor

City of St. Louis v. Young

235 Mo. 63 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 1, 1911

BROWN, C. — The record in this case is substantially the same as in the case of City of St. Louis v.. … The foregoing opinion of Brown, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All .the judges concur.

State of Missouri ex rel. Dr. Anna Fitz-James v. Andrew Bailey, In His Official Capacity, and Scott Fitzpatrick

Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 20, 2023

See Brown v. … Brown, 370 S.W.3d at 645 (quoting Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Mo. banc 1990)).

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Field

188 Mo. 182 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 25, 1905

[Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26 ; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hunt, 100 Mo. 22 ; Swift v. St. Louis, 180 Mo. 80 .] … In Nagel v.

State Ex Rel. Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Webster Groves General Sewer District No. 1 of St. Louis County

327 Mo. 594 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 7, 1931

Westhues v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. l. c. 577; State ex rel. v. Bell Tel. Co., 292 S. W. 1037 ; State ex rel. v. Linville, 300 S. W. 1066 .] … J. 122-125; Lilly v. Menke, 143 Mo. 146 ; Bensieck v. Cook, 110 Mo. 173 ; Richards v. Johnson, 261 S. W. 53 ; Knoop v.

Shively v. Lankford

174 Mo. 535 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 19, 1903

If “it appeared to. the board,” and the board so recites, the conclusion is inevitable that the board so found the fact. This is a sufficient compliance with the statute. [Nickerson v. Lynch, 135 Mo. 480 .] III. … [Carpenter v. Dame, 10 Ind. loc. cit. 129; Bradford v. State, 15 Ind. 353 ; Nelson v. State, 57 Miss. 286 .]

State v. Loston

234 S.W.2d 535 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 13, 1950

The weight and credibility of Zella Brown's testimony was for the jury. State *538 v. Harmon, supra. We rule this assignment against defendant. … Zella Brown was sitting within a few feet of defendant and deceased. She heard defendant's threat and heard the gun fired.

Home Exchange Bank v. Koch

326 Mo. 369 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 13, 1930

Reference is made by appellants to Smith v. Ohio Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 320 Mo. 146 , 6 S. … It is also held in - a -leading- ease cited by appellants. *374 Browning v. North Mo. Cent. Ry.

Laclede Land & Improvement Co. v. Creason

264 Mo. 452 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 30, 1915

[Brown v. Oldham, 123 Mo. 621 ; Manning v. … Curran, 18 Mo. 320 (Melvin and Melville); Robson v. Thomas, 55 Mo. 581 (Mathews and Mather); State v. Brown, 119 Mo. 527 (Gratz and Grolts); Simonson v. Dolan, 114 Mo. 176 (Siemson and Simonson); People v.

Abernathy v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

237 S.W.2d 161 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 12, 1951

In Satterlee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. … See Young v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St.

Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Ranson

328 Mo. 524 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 29, 1931

[Handlin v. Morgan Co., 57 Mo. 114, 116 ; Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. 27, 34 ; Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 27 , 30, 10 S. W. 595 ; State v. Hamey, 168 Mo. 167, 194 , 67 S. W. 620 ; Murphy v. … Brown v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 92 Mo. 137 , 6 S. W. 862 ; Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Lamkin, 97 Mo. 496 , 10 S. W. 200 , and other cases, and in the instant case appellant does not say that it is unconstitutional.

State v. Kirkland

471 S.W.2d 191 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 11, 1971

Williams, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 865 , Bond v. Wabash R. Co., Mo., 363 S.W.2d 1, 5 [3, 4], Mash v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., Mo., 341 S.W.2d 822 , State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130 , State v. … In State v.

State ex rel. Parker-Washington Co. v. City of St. Louis

207 Mo. 354 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 27, 1907

Randle v. … State Board, 64 Mo. 294 ; State ex rel. v. Teasdale, 101 Mo. 174 ; Ward v. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo. 309 ; State ex rel. v.

State ex rel. Monsey-Feager/Rouse-Waites v. McGuire

510 S.W.2d 449 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 13, 1974

In Cohen v. … Osborne et al., 286 N.Y. 403 , 36 N.E.2d 638 (1941); Ross et al. v. County Board of Arlington County, et al., 197 Va. 91 , 87 S.E.2d 794 (1955) and Ballman v. Duffecy, 230 Ind. 220 , 102 N.E.2d 646 (1952).

State ex rel. Jackson County, Missouri, Relators v. The Honorable David Chamberlain

Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 19, 2023

Sperry Corp. v. Wiles, 695 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Mo. banc 1985). … Here, it was not the case that Taxpayers were afforded no opportunity to contest the assessment at the Board or before the Commission. Taxpayers additionally cite Ingles v. Noel, 804 S.W.2d 808 (Mo.

Swope v. Emerson Electric Manufacturing Co.

303 S.W.2d 35 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 13, 1957

Moreover, the usual form of order issued by the board is directed to the employer and to its officers and agents. N. L. R. B. v. Landis Tool Co., 3 Cir., 145 F.2d 152 ; N.L.R.B. v. Sunbeam Electric Mfg. … It is apparent that the Labor Board could effectively remedy any unfair labor practice on the part of individual employee-defendants. In the case of Schatte v.

State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney

269 Mo. 602 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 29, 1917

It is likewise clear that in hearing such complaints the Board of Police Commissioners sit and act not in judicial capacities, but in administrative capacities. [State ex rel. Heimburger v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601 .] … We must assume that the individual members of the Board of Police Commissioners will honestly, properly and efficiently perform the duties saddled upon them by statute (State ex rel. v. Wells, supra; State ex rel. v.

State v. Gresham

637 S.W.2d 20 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 23, 1982

In State v. … We glean from State v.

Young v. City of St. Louis

47 Mo. 492 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1871

The certiorari issued in this case brings up the record of the board of water commissioners, and the question is whether the action of the board, in making an assessment against the respondent for laying a water-pipe in front … (People v. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517 ; see also Rector, etc., of Trinity Church v. Higgins, 4 Roberts, 1.)

State ex inf. Dalton v. Eckley

347 S.W.2d 704 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1961

McKittrick v. American Colony Ins. Co., 336 Mo. 406 , 80 S.W.2d 876 ; State ex rel. Bennett v. Clarendon Independent School District, 156 Tex. 542 , 298 S.W.2d 111 ; McFarlin v. State ex rel. … Quo War-ranto is a proper remedy to test the jurisdiction of a school board over territory claimed by another school -district. State ex rel. Dalton ex rel. Stonum v.