Case law

Belk v. Hamilton

130 Mo. 292 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 7, 1895

Crowley v. Wallace *301 (1848), 12 Mo. 143 ; Kayser v. Trustees (1852), 16 Mo. 88 ; Butler v. Barr (1853), 18 Mo. 357 ; State v. Weatherly (1869), 45 Mo. 17 ; Snoddy v. Pettis Co. (1870), 45 Mo. 361 ; Lingo v. … S. 1889, sec. 2117; Bowie v. Kansas City (1873), 51 Mo. 454 . The gist of the final decision of the board is seen.

State ex rel. Connor v. City of St. Louis

158 Mo. 505 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 12, 1900

In State ex rel. v. … [State ex rel. v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123 ; State ex rel. v. State Board of Health, 103 Mo. 22 ; State ex rel. v. Oliver, 116 Mo. 188 .] The judgment of the circuit court is reversed.

City of St. Louis v. Meyrose Lamp Manufacturing Co.

139 Mo. 560 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1897

Louis v. Knox, 74 Mo. 79 , a similar ordinance was held valid, requiring application for a license for the sale of horses, etc., to be made through the board of police commissioners. So, also, in St. Louis v. … Flickinger v. Fisher, 119 Mo. 344 . With regard to doctors, this court has sustained the legal force and effect of the statute. State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 .

State Ex Rel. American Central Insurance v. Reynolds

289 Mo. 382 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 19, 1921

The same principle is announced in the following cases: Fulton v. Fisher, 239 Mo. l.c. 131; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Nathan, 175 Mo. l.c. 42, 74 S.W. l.c. 1008; Mathiason v. St. Louis, 156 Mo. l.c. 200; Joyce v. … of James v.

Fulton v. City of Lockwood

269 S.W.2d 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 12, 1954

Board of Public Works of Rolla v. Sho-Me Power Corp., 362 Mo. 730 , 244 S.W.2d 55, 60 [5]; Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. City of New Madrid, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 850 , 853[7]; Haskins v. … to prove what the" board actually did * * State ex rel.

Johnson v. School District

67 Mo. 319 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1878

The Supreme Court of Iowa in Taylor v. … See also Clark v. School Directors, 78 Ill. 474 ; Cheeney v. The Inhabitants of Brookfield, 60 Mo. 58 .

State ex rel. Lathrop v. Dowling

50 Mo. 134 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1872

The action of the board of appeals is judicial in its nature, and this is the proper mode of reviewing its proceedings. (Lee’s Adm’r v. St. Louis County Court, 47 Mo. 594 .) 2. … (Lionberger v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 67 ; First National Bank v. Meredith, 44 Mo. 500 .) 4.

State v. Henderson

186 Mo. 473 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 21, 1905

After Brown and defendant reached Wentzville that night, and before defendant was arrested, Brown took defendant to Ball’s livery stable, and there defendant repeated his confession to Brown and Mr. … Ball substantially as he had made it to Brown. Brown and Ball both testified they did not threaten defendant nor make him any promises.

McCullough v. Newton

348 S.W.2d 138 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 10, 1961

The work of grading the land, removing timber, and draining and filling the pond proceeded promptly, at a cost of approximately $2,700 to Brown and Hilderhof. … See Katz v. Dreyfoos, Mo.App., 26 S.W.2d 999 , 1001, and cases cited; Stout v. Edwards, Mo.App., 210 S.W. 128 , 129.

City of St. Louis v. Tiefel

42 Mo. 578 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1868

(People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 495 ; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82 ; Whiting v. Mount Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 482 ; Supervisors v. People, 25 Ill. 181 ; Clinton v. Draper, 14 Ind. 295 ; Successors of Lanzetti, 9 La. An. 329.) … Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681 ; State v. Powers, 14 Ind. 195 .)

Gist v. Rackliffe-Gibson Construction Co.

224 Mo. 369 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 21, 1909

In Cricket v. … [Hinds v. Marmolejo, 60 Cal. 229 ; Guild v. Bank, 4 S. D. 566; Wolverton v. Bank, 11 Wash. 94 ; Polk v. County, 5 Dak. 129 .] White v.

Amick v. Pattonville-Bridgeton Terrace Fire Protection District

91 S.W.3d 603 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 24, 2002

Const. article V, section 10. Reversed and remanded. The parties agree that the district is protected by sovereign immunity. Light v. Lang, 539 S.W.2d 795, 800 (Mo.App.1976); see Richardson v. … For the same reason and to the same extent Browning by Browning v. White, 940 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Mo.App.1997), and Balderree v. Beeman, 837 S.W.2d 309, 319 (Mo.App.1992), are overruled.

McClellan v. Kansas City

379 S.W.2d 500 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1964

Readey v. St. … Whetsel v. Wood (1952), 207 Okl. 193 , 248 P.2d 612 , 34 A.L.R.2d 1321 ; State v. Morrow, 231 La. 572 , 92 So.2d 70 ; Livesay v. Tennessee Board of Examiners, 204 Tenn. 500 , 322 S.W.2d 209 .

Matthews v. Hunter

67 Mo. 293 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1878

Brown, to whom, after an approval of said sale by said court, he executed a deed therefor. … (Carlisle’s Adm’r v. Mulhern et al., 19 Mo. 57 ; Duhring v. Duhring, 20 Mo. 184 .)

State ex rel. McMurray v. Doan

39 Mo. 44 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1866

Browne, 1 Rawle, 121 ) ; and a judgment for the damages would vest the property in the goods in the defendant— March v. Pier, 4 Rawle, 286 ; Brown v. Wooton, 2 Cro. Jac. 73; Adam v. Broughton, 2 Str. 1078. … But (as it was said in Eloyd v.

Hatfield v. Thompson

252 S.W.2d 534 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 10, 1952

Their testimony also was that the manner in which plaintiff attempted to board No. 62 was the usual and customary manner in which experienced trainmen boarded moving trains and that an experienced trainman could safely board … See Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co., and Griffith v. Gardner, both supra.

Horgan v. Brady

155 Mo. 659 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 30, 1900

[Trig v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245 ; Walker v. Owen, 79 Mo. 563 ; Tomlinson v. Ellison, 104. Mo. 105; Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. 315 ; Minton v. Steele, 125 Mo. 181 .] … [Loomis v. Railroad, 17 Mo. App. 340 ; Waller v. Railroad, 59 Mo. App. 410 ; Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Central Bank, 116 Mo. 558 ; Sprague v. Sea, 152 Mo. 327 .]

State Ex Rel. Stone v. Thomas

349 Mo. 22 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 6, 1942

Undoubtedly the Board has the implied power of removal for cause, but can only exercise such power after notice and hearing. [State ex rel. v. Maroney, 191 Mo. 531 , 90 S. W. 141 .] … [State ex rel. v. Maroney, 191 Mo. 531 , 90 S. W. 141 ; State ex rel. v. Elkin, 130 Mo. 90 , 30 S. W. 333 ; State ex rel. v. Aloe, 152 Mo. 466 , 54 S. W. 494 ; State ex rel. v. Jones, 274 Mo. 374 , 202 S. W. 1117 .]

Rehm v. Alber

272 Mo. 452 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 3, 1917

'Since 1909, and before that time, plaintiff says he commenced boarding with Mrs. Alber and paid his board regularly every week. He claims to have bought the lot in suit in 1884. … [Barrett v. Foote, 187 S. W. (Mo.) l. c. 70; Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Kuhlmann, 238 Mo. l. c. 697; Cole v. Cole, 231 Mo. 236 ; Bank v. Fry, 216 Mo. l. c. 45.]

State Ex Rel. Phillips v. Yeaman

451 S.W.2d 115 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 9, 1970

State Tax Commission v. Briscoe, supra. … Janus v. Ferriss (Mo.App.) 344 S.W.2d 656, 659 ; State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood, 155 Mo. 425 , 56 S.W. 474 , 48 L.R.A. 596 ; Weston v. Fisher (Mo.App.) 180 S.W. 1038 ; State ex rel. Mathas v.