Case law

State Ex Rel. Powers v. Donohue

368 S.W.2d 432 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 4, 1963

Article V, § 3, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S. The following facts are not in dispute. St. … In Baum v. City of St.

Layson v. Jackson County

365 Mo. 905 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 9, 1956

Buchanan County v. Fulks, 296 Mo. 614, 626 , 247 S.W. 129, 132 ; and that we must, if possible, reconcile any .apparent conflict in these two statutes with the general legislative-purpose; State ex rel. McKittrick v. … State v. Powers, 350 Mo. 942, 944 , 169 S.W. 2d 377, 378 [6]. A. brief may not supply deficiencies in a motion for new trial. State v. Davis, Mo., 251 S.W. 2d 610, 616 [5-7].

Grossman v. Patton

186 Mo. 661 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 21, 1905

We think the board must find they were freeholders as a condition precedent to support the condemnation. [Fore v. Hoke, 48 Mo. App. 254 ; Jones v. Zink, 65 Mo. App. 412 ; Spurlock v. Dorman, 182 Mo. 242 .] … [Railroad v. Story, 96 Mo. 620 .]

Beauchamp v. Consolidated School District No. 4

297 Mo. 64 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 2, 1923

[State ex rel. v. Gordon, 242 Mo. l. c. 623; State ex rel. v. Allen, 178 Mo. l. c. 576; O’Laughlin v. Kirkwood, 107 Mo. App. 302 ; Bauch v. Cabool, 165 Mo. App. 486 ; State ex rel. v. … Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. l. c. 60 et seq.

Matter of Lowther

611 S.W.2d 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 13, 1981

State v. Granberry, 491 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Mo. banc 1973); State v. Healy, 562 S.W.2d 118, 125 (Mo.App.1978); cf. State v. … Bates v. Brown Shoe Co., 342 Mo. 411 , 116 S.W.2d 31, 33 (1938). The burden of proof that respondent violated any disciplinary rule rests upon the committee.

Murrell v. Wolff

408 S.W.2d 842 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1966

Kramer v. … Dean v.

Cassidy v. City of St. Joseph

247 Mo. 197 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 24, 1912

BROWN, C. … [Murtaugh v. City, 44 Mo. 479 ; Hannon v. St. Louis Co., 62 Mo. 313 ; Armstrong v. City, 79 Mo. 319 ; Kiley v. City, 87 Mo. 103 ; Carrington v. City, 89 Mo. 208 ; Keating v.

Carnahan v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad

338 Mo. 23 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 18, 1935

[Burnes v. Railroad, 129 Mo. 41 , l. c. 54, 31 S. W. 347 ]. … Plaintiff answered the contention by evidence tending to exclude every probability of oil or grease having been placed on the stirrup of the ladder after the train left the terminal. [ Cole v.

State ex rel. Consolidated School District No. One v. Hackmann

277 Mo. 56 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 15, 1919

In White v. … S. 284 , l. c. 294; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474 ; Board Education of Hawesville v. Railway, 110 Ky. 932 , l. c. 941; McQuillin on Munic. Corp., vol. 5, sec. 2373, p. 4971; Dillon on Munic. Corp., sec. 113, p. 192.

Pope v. Lockhart

299 Mo. 141 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1923

[State ex rel. v. Phipps, 148 Mo. l. c. 36, 37.] … Co. v. People, 208 Ill. l. c. 11, 12, and cases cited; 1 High on Injunctions (4 Ed.) sec. 544, pp. 517, 518, 519.] The power given the board is “highly discretionary” and legislative in nature.

State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Nickerson & Nickerson, Inc.

494 S.W.2d 344 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 14, 1973

V, §§ 3, 31, V.A. M.S. The date of the taking was April 1, 1964. … Brown v. Bryan, 419 S.W.2d 62, 67 (Mo.1967); Grundmann v. Knezevich, 449 S. W.2d 874, 876 (Mo.App.1970).

Warren v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

115 Mo. 572 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 8, 1893

No charter prohibition being charged, we must assume that, the board acted within its discretionary powers in awarding the contract. Gibson v. Owens ante p. 258, and cases cited; State v. Council, 30 N. J. … Sheehan v. Owen, 82 Mo. 464 ; Ross v. Stackhouse, 114 Ind. 200 ; Cole v. Skrainka, 105 Mo. 309 ; Gibson v. Owens ante p. 258; Morse v. Westport, 110 Mo. 502 ; Johnson v. Duer, ante p. 366. IY.

State v. Nasello

325 Mo. 442 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 11, 1930

[State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 , 12 Murder in Robbery: S.W. 516; State v. Brown, 119 Mo. 527 , 24 Conspiracy: Proof . S.W. 1027, 25 S.W. 200 ; State v. Foster, 136 Mo. 653 , 38 S.W. 721 ; State v. … The evidence tends to show that the man that shot Smith had one foot outside the door on the right-hand running board.

State ex rel. Moore v. Corcoran

653 S.W.2d 657 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 29, 1983

The Board stepped out of line when it told the circuit court that a 20 hour operation was “not efficient.” The circuit court, I repeat, is best able to decide when it needs services. … The resources of the Board, however, are finite and it may be that something else will have to give if the court maintains its position that 20 hour service is required.

Blanton v. Dolb

109 Mo. 64 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

Donahue v. Brown (1891), 154 Mass. 21 . Many other illustrations might be cited were it necessary. … In Gibson v.

State ex rel. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. Shacklett

37 Mo. 280 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 15, 1866

(Brown v. Henderson, 1 Mo. 134 ; Mayor v. Morgan, 7 Martin, N. S., 2; 8 Bac. Abr. 691; case of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke, 160; Brown v. Compton, 8 T. R. 424.) … (State v. Moore, 19 Mo. 372 ; 21 Mo. 160 ; The People v. Schuyler, 4 Comst. 173; Archer v. Nobb, 3 Greenl. 418; Harris v. Hanson, 11 Me. 241 ; Cormack v. Com. 5 Binn. 184 ; Com. v.

Wolf v. Missouri State Training School for Boys

517 S.W.2d 138 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 16, 1974

Board, Mr. … Davidson v.

Tillman v. Melton

350 Mo. 155 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 10, 1942

Sullivan County v. Maryland Casualty Co., 334 Mo. 259 , 66 S.W.2d 537 , 538; Conley v. … Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123 , 127, 22 S.W. 472 ; Pocoke v. Peterson, 256 Mo. 501 , 516, 165 S.W. 1017 ; also Board of Education of Borough of West Paterson v. Brophy, 90 N.J.

Hightower v. Edwards

445 S.W.2d 273 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 8, 1969

Fletcher v. Kemp, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 178, 184 . … in accepting his assignment to work from the board.

Wilson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

319 Mo. 308 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 3, 1928

[Gutridge v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 468, 474 , 7 S. W. 476 .] What kind of inspection is required to meet the test of ordinary care ? In Gutridge v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 520, 526-7 , and again in Near v. … [Brightwell v. Lusk, 194 Mo. App. 1 . c. 649, 189 S. W. 413 , citing: Brewing Assn. v. Talbot, 141 Mo. 674 ; Moore v. Lead Co., 125 Mo. App. 1 . c. 396; Monday v. Railroad, 136 Mo. App. 696 ; Foley v. McMahon, 114 Mo.