Case law

State v. Hathaway

115 Mo. 36 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 20, 1893

This act has twice before been before this court, in the eases of State ex rel. v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123 , and State ex rel. v. State Board of Health, 103 Mo. 22 . … The language of the court in State ex rel. v. State Board of Health, supra, is: “This section of the statute imposes upon the board duties which are quasi-judicial in their character.

Lance C. Shockley v. State of Missouri

579 S.W.3d 881 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 16, 2019

Clayton v. … State v. Brown, 337 S.W.3d 12, 15 (Mo. banc 2011). Logical relevance refers to the tendency “to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable.” State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 538 (Mo. banc 2010).

Miller v. Police Retirement System of St. Louis

296 S.W.2d 78 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 10, 1956

Louis v. … Louis v. Murphy, supra [4], See also Ex parte Lockhart, 350 Mo. 1220, 171 S.W.2d 660 [18]; State ex rel. State Board of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798 , 244 S.W.2d 75 [1]; Stribling v.

Hiney v. Thomas

36 Mo. 377 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1865

(Martin v. Michael, 23 Mo. 50 ; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 4 J. Ch. 671; Melville v. Brown, 1 Harr. & J. 367.) In the case of the United States Bank v. … (Smith v. Phillips, 25 Mo. 555 .) In any view of the case the judgment rendered was erroneous. For this reason the defendant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Richardson v. Ozark Airlines, Inc.

270 S.W.2d 8 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 12, 1954

Co., 7 Cir., 195 F.2d 73, 74 , stated: “In Broady v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 7 Cir., 191 F.2d 73 , certiorari denied, 342 U.S. 897 , 72 S.Ct. 231 [ 96 L.Ed. 672 ], we held, on authority of Slocum v. … Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630 , 61 S.Ct. 754 , 85 L.Ed. 1089 and Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239 , 70 S.Ct. 577, 580 , 94 L.Ed. 795 .

Ex parte Lucas

160 Mo. 218 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 19, 1901

[United States v. Williams, 1 Paine’s C. C. Repts. 261; Eliot v. Cranston, 10 R. I. 88; Johnson v. Fay, 16 Gray (Mass.), 144 .] … We cite, as pertinent to the question, State v. Medical Examining Board, 32 Minn. 327 , 20 N. W. 238 ; State v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 34 Minn. 387 , 26 N. W. 123 ; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 , 5 Sup.

Stemmler v. Einstein

297 S.W.2d 467 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 22, 1957

Section 4, Article V, of the Constitution; State ex rel. State Board of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798 , 244 S.W.2d 75 . Since the adoption of the Constitution of 1875, the City of St. … Hawes (of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis) v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23 , 54 S.W. 524 ; State ex rel. Goodnow v. Police Commissioners of Kansas City, 184 Mo. 109 , 71 S.W. 215 , 88 S.W. 27 .

State Ex Rel. Muns v. Hackmann

283 Mo. 469 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 26, 1920

[Roach v. The Board, 77 Mo. 484 ; Carling v. Jersey City, 71 N. J. L. l. c. 158; American Asylum v. Phoenix Bank, 4 Conn. 172 ; Board of Education v. Hyatt, 152 Calif. l. c. 519.] … All these schools are under,the authority and control of the district board. The whole form a system which constitutes the common or public school or schools of the district. In Board of Education v.

State Ex Rel. Henderson v. Proctor

361 S.W.2d 802 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1962

Brown, 296 Mich. 463 , 296 N.W. 538 , are somewhat analogous to the situation here presented. … See also Elliott v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Miss. 631 , 179 So. 344 , 180 So. 72 ; 66 C.J.S. Newspapers § 9, p. 33.

Swift v. City of St. Louis

180 Mo. 80 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 24, 1904

When that question was again raised in Verdin v. City of St. … in Schoenberg v.

State Ex Rel. Buckner v. McElroy

309 Mo. 595 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 18, 1925

In Russell v. Crook County Court, 75 Ore. l. c. 169, “County Business” from a constitutional sense has been well defined. The syllabus reads: “7. … The California Court in Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. l. c. 388, borrows the New York definition of “County Affairs,” thus: “In defining the phrase ‘county affairs’ the court said in Hankins v. Mayor, 64 N.

State on inf. of Dalton v. Dearing

364 Mo. 475 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 11, 1954

Riesterer v. Horton Land & Lbr. Co., 160 Mo. 141, 151 , 61 S.W. 238, 240 ; State ex rel. Lashly v. Becker, 290 Mo. 560, 579 , 235 S.W. 1017, 1020 (3); State ex rel. Harry L. Hussman Refrg. & Supply Co. v. City of St. … Louis, 319 Mo. 497, 507 , 5 S.W.2d 1080, 1084 (4); Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 592 (2), 85 S.W.2d 543, 547 (3); State ex rel. City of Carthage v. Hackmann, 287 Mo. 184, 190 , 229 S.W. 1078, 1080 (3).

State ex rel. Gottlieb v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

165 Mo. 502 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 3, 1901

S. 143 ; Balfour v. City of Portland, 28 Fed. 738 ; *516 Trustees of Cincinnati So. Railroad v. Guenther, 19 Fed. 395 ; Railroad v. Board, etc., 67 Fed. 411 ; Railroad v. Board, 54 Kansas, 781; Stanley v. … Board, 67 Fed. 411 .

Aslin v. Stoddard County

341 Mo. 138 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 21, 1937

(N.S.) l.c. 659), quoting approvingly from Pulaski County v. Shields, 130 Ind. 6 , 29 N.E. 385 : "It (the board) is a continuous body. While the personnel of its membership changes, the corporation continues unchanged. … A contract by a board of commissioners, the duration of which extends beyond the term of service of its then members, is not, therefore, invalid for that reason." In said case of Manley v.

Ex Parte Lockhart

350 Mo. 1220 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 5, 1943

Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600 , 31 S. W. 1045 . Nor does the ordinance in question delegate unregulated discretion to the Board of Public Service. … Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589 , 103 S. W. 1078 ; Ballentine v. Nester, supra. Petitioner next contends that the “certificate of convenience and necessity” granted by the Board of Public Service is a franchise.

State Ex Rel. MacK v. Purkett

825 S.W.2d 851 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 28, 1992

the Board’s conclusion. … Burkhalter, 588 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.1978); Prellwitz v. Berg, 578 F.2d 190 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Pattman, 535 F.2d 1062 (8th Cir.1976); and Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla.App.1977). But see Gholston v.

Shaw v. Chicago Alton Railroad Co.

314 Mo. 123 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 12, 1926

In Beemer v. Kerr, 23 U. C. Q. B. l. c. 559, Draper, C. … Further in the case of State v.

Estate of Smith

767 S.W.2d 29 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 14, 1989

Brown, Sr., a St. Joseph attorney. Present at the meeting with Mr. Brown were Faye V. (Haer) Smith, Charles Smith, Melvin Haer and his wife, Betty Jo Haer. … In re Estate of Gangloff v.

Kopp v. Blessing

121 Mo. 391 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 19, 1894

Frank Kopp in the meantime bad become tbe owner of tbe Dodd, Brown & Company note and security, and brought suit to foreclose both mortgages, and obtained a judgment of foreclosure, September 28, 1884. … Greer v. Major (1893), 114 Mo. 145 . Upon the record before us, we are of opinion that there was error in giving defendant’s instruction, above quoted, and that it was prejudicial to plaintiff’s rights upon the merits.

McElroy v. Fluker

265 S.W.2d 361 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 8, 1954

Housman v. Lewellen, 362 Mo. 759 , 244 S.W.2d 21 ; Shelton v. Shelton, 348 Mo. 820, 155 . S.W.2d 187. … Lang v. Estorge, Mo.Sup., 242 S.W.2d 50 ; Smoot v. Harbur, 357 Mo. 511, 512 , 209 S.W.2d 249 ; Crowson v. Crowson, 323 Mo. 633 , 19 S.W.2d 634 ; Bond v. Riley, 317 Mo. 594 , 296 S.W. 401 .