Case law

Biffle v. Pullam

114 Mo. 50 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 6, 1893

Smyth on Homestead, sec. 308; Doyle v. Coburn, 6 Allen, 71 ; Byers v. Byers, 21 Iowa, 268 . … Leake v. King, 85 Mo. 413 ; Brown v. Brown’s Adm’r, 68 Mo. 388 ; Beckmann v. Meyer, 75 Mo. 333 .

State Ex Rel. Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Baker

316 Mo. 853 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 1, 1927

[Valle v. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 219 ; Leavell v. Blades, 237 Mo. l. c. 700; State ex rel. Am. Cent. Ins. Co. v. Gehner, 280 S. W. l. c. 419; State ex rel. Koeln v. Lesser, 237 Mo. l. c. 318.] … Union Electric Co. v.

Davis v. Rossi

326 Mo. 911 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1930

[In re Estate of Soulard, 141 Mo. 642 , 43 S.W. 617 ; Harris Banking Co. v. Miller, 190 Mo. 640 , 89 S.W. 629 ; Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 58 , 158 S.W. 624 ; Mendenhall v. Pearce (Mo. Sup.), 20 S.W.2d 670 ; Van Cott v. … [Kelley v. Snow, 185 Mass. 288 .] Even the reservation of the power to revoke a trust does not render it invalid or change its character. [Sims v. Brown, Van Cott v. Prentice, Stone v. Hackett, Talbot v.

Kincaid-Webber Motor Co. v. Quinn

362 Mo. 375 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 9, 1951

Baush Machine Tool Co. v. Hill, 231 Mass. 30 , 120 N. E. 188 ; Folsom Engraving Co. v. McNeil, 235 Mass. 269 , 126 N. E. 479 .” To the same effect see State ex rel. Allai v. Thatch, 361 Mo. 190 , 234 S. … Appellants in their reply brief cite Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 71 S.

Pierce v. Harper

311 Mo. 301 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1925

In Sayles v. … [Gannett v. Albree, 103 Mass. 372 ; Skillman v. Smatheurst, 12 Dick. 1; Hobson v. Tulloch (1898), 1 Ch. 424.]" In Gannett v.

Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Givan

65 Mo. 89 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1877

In the case of Berry et al. v. … Story on agency, sec. 413, 429, 430; Buckwalter v. Craig, 55 Mo. 71 ; Greenwood v. Burnes, 50 Mo. 52 ; Wharton on agents, 210; Flanagan v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 51 .

McGuire Ex Rel. McGuire v. Amyx

317 Mo. 1061 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 16, 1927

[Brown v. Purdy, 22 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 109, 8 N. Y. Supp. 143 .] … ITe is a member of our school board, and on this occasion he and another member of the board and I were discussing if the children should be vaccinated. I am principal of the school, and we discussed it generally. Mr.

City of St. Louis v. Gleason

93 Mo. 33 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1887

The court then proceeds to state that a different doctrine had been announced by this court, in the cases of Young v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 492 ; St. Louis v. Foster, 52 Mo. 517, and St. Louis v. Meyer, 13 Mo. App. 367 . … In Young v, St.

State Ex Rel. Kansas City University of Physicians & Surgeons v. North

316 Mo. 1050 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 8, 1927

[People v. Raport, 193 App. Div. (N. Y.) 135; Kirk v. Board of Health, 83 S. C. l. c. 380; 29 C. … If a board’s acts are reasonable, however, and thus clearly within the purview of its powers they are entitled to and will receive judicial sanction. [State ex rel. v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569 ; Williams v.

State ex rel. Perrine v. Keirnan

361 Mo. 871 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1950

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 16 ; 68 S. Ct. 836 , 92 L. Ed. 1161 , 3 A. L. R. 2d 441; Brinkerhoff-Faris T. & S. Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 680 , 50 S. Ct. 451 , 74 L. Ed. 1107 ; Conway v. Robinson (Mo.), 178 S. … W. 154 , 157[2] ; Cornet v. St. Louis County (Mo.), 240 S. W. 107 , 111[4, 5] ; Ussery v. Haynes, 344 Mo. 530 , 127 S. W. 2d 410, 414 [4] ; Union Cemetery Ass’n v. Kansas City, 252 Mo. 466 , 161 S.

State ex rel. School District v. Harter

188 Mo. 516 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 24, 1905

board. … [School District v. Boyle, 182 Mo. 347 .] State ex rel. v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325 , was a proceeding in quo warranto to remove the defendant from the office of member of the school board in St.

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.

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.

United C.O.D. v. State

150 S.W.3d 311 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 7, 2004

Americans United v. Rogers, 538 S.W.2d *314 711, 716 (Mo. bane 1976). … practicing barbers to serve on barber board); section 329.190 (registered and licensed cosmetologists to serve on state board of cosmetology); and Rule 8.01 (members of The Missouri Bar to serve on board of law examiners

Sullivan v. Ferguson

40 Mo. 79 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1867

In the case of Brown v. … Brown, 1 Mason, 191 ; 2 Sto. Eq. Jur. § 1226, note 2; 4 Kent’s Com. 153; Fish v. Howland, 1 Paige’s Ch. 20.

Plefka v. Knapp, Stout & Co.

145 Mo. 316 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 6, 1898

judgment of the circuit court, in an opinion written by Judge Bond and concurred in by Judge Bland of that court, was affirmed, Judge Biggs dissenting and deeming the opinion in conflict with the following cases: Helfenstein v. … Medart, 136 Mo. 595 ; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475 ; Bradley v. Railroad, 138 Mo. 293 ; Lucey v. Hannibal Oil Co., 129 Mo. 32 ; Devitt v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 302 ; Ellingson v. Railroad, 60 Mo.

Worley Ex Rel. Worley v. Tucker Nevils, Inc.

503 S.W.2d 417 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 10, 1973

Skadal v. Brown, 351 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.1961). The other type of attack is that the verdict is merely excessive. … Skadel v. Brown, 351 S.W.2d l. c. 689.

Fellows v. Wise

49 Mo. 350 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 15, 1872

(Brown v. Brown, 45 Mo. 412 .)

Andrews v. Metropolitan Building Co.

349 Mo. 927 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 1, 1942

The court said: "Those who conduct taverns, hotels and boarding houses may live in them, but can it be said that they are not `used except for residential purposes?'" In Carr v. Trivett, 24 Tenn. … Kohn, 239 Ky. 460 , 39 S.W.2d 687 , 688, 689; McMurtry v. Phillips Inv. Co., 103 Ky. 308 , 45 S.W. 96 . Appellants further contend that a boarding house or apartment is a dwelling house.

State on Information of McKittrick v. Whittle

333 Mo. 705 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 23, 1933

[Wilson v. Drainage and Levee District, 237 Mo. 39 , l. c. 46, 48, 139 S. W. 136 .] … [State ex rel. v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325 , l. c. 331, 332, 36 S. W. 636 .] To the same effect, State ex rel. Zevely v. Hackmann, 300 Mo. 59 , l. c. 66, 67, 254 S. W. 53 ; Hasting v.