Case law

Holton v. Towner

81 Mo. 360 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1884

Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 441 . … Vide Wilcoxon v. Osborn, 77 Mo. 621 ; Brown v. Brown, 45 Mo. 412 . We understand the deed and judgment to have been excluded by the court below, on the ground that the judgment was a nullity.

State v. Keeble

427 S.W.2d 404 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 8, 1968

Such a rule is dictated as a result of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 , 81 S.Ct. 895 , 6 L.Ed.2d 39 , and Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 , 83 S.Ct. 768 , 9 L.Ed.2d 892 . … In the subsequent case of Lane v. Brown, supra, 372 U.S. 1 . c. 484, 83 S.Ct. 1 . c. 773, the court said: “In Smith v.

State ex rel. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Sheppard

245 Mo. 50 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 2, 1912

After duly organizing, said board of supervisors appointed a board of engineers and directed them to-make a topographical survey of the lands located within the district, together with maps and profiles, and '■a plan for … We also held in the case of Little Tarkio Drainage District No. 1 v. Richardson, supra, and Little River Drainage District, J. H. Himmelberger et al. v. T. E.

State Ex Rel. Empire District Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission

339 Mo. 1188 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1936

Railways Co. v. Public Service Commission, 223 N. Y. 373 , 119 N. E. 848 ; Havre de Grace & Perryville Bridge Co. v. Towers, 132 Md. 16 , 103 Atl. 319 .] … In Board of Public Utility Comrs. v. New York Telephone Company, 271 U. S. 23 , 70 L.

City of St. Louis v. Chas. F. Querl Lumber Co.

277 Mo. 167 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 4, 1919

Louis v. Lawton, 189 Mo. 475 ; Richardson v. Schuyler Co. Assn., 156 Mo. 407 ; Moran v. Stewart, 246 Mo. 463 .] … Louis v. Lawton, supra) and finding, and upon final judgment being rendered, to have appealed for errors occurring upon the hearing of the. special taxpayers’ exceptions at which the point ivas ruled against it.

Pietzuk v. Kansas City Railways Co.

289 Mo. 135 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 11, 1921

[White v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 178 S. W. l. c. 84; Althoff v. Transit Co., 204 Mo. 166 ; State v. Johnson, 255 Mo. 281 ; Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307 .] … V.

Reals v. Courson

349 Mo. 1193 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 28, 1942

Gentry v. … Gentry v.

Maynard v. Doe Run Lead Co.

305 Mo. 356 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 10, 1924

[Johnson v. United Rys. Co., 243 Mo. 1 . c. 298, and cases cited; Shelby County v. Bragg, 135 Mo. 1 . c. 298.] … [Hudson v. Cahoon, 193 Mo. 1 . c. 560; Board of Commissioners v. Renshaw, 99 Pac. (Okla.) 638, 1. c. 640, note; Thompson v. Lyons, 281 Mo. 1 . c. 449.]

Glass v. First National Bank of St. Louis, N.A.

186 S.W.3d 766 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 5, 2005

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo. banc 1999); Wright v. Mo. Dept. of Social Services, 25 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo.App.2000). The constitutional issue must be real and substantial, not merely colorable. … WHITE, C.J., WOLFF, STITH and PRICE, JJ., and BROWN, Sp.J., concur. LIMBAUGH and RUSSELL, JJ., not participating.

Bonine v. City of Richmond

75 Mo. 437 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1882

The same principle is announced in Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sections 148, 149, and is fully sustained by the following authorities: Russell v. Town of Columbia, 74 Mo. 480; Colby v. … City of Beaver Dam, 34 Wis. 285; Manchester v. City of Hartford, 30 Conn. 118 ; City of Springfield v. Doyle, 76 Ill. 202 ; Mayor v. Sheffield, 4 Wall. 189 ; Dewey v. City of Detroit, 15 Mich. 307 .

American Polled Hereford Ass'n v. City of Kansas City

626 S.W.2d 237 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 12, 1982

In Seibert v. … Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 , 86 S.Ct. 1079 [1081], 16 L.Ed.2d 169 .

State ex rel. Walker v. Rebenack

135 Mo. 340 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 15, 1896

Art. 9, sec. 23, Const. of Mo. 1875; State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217 . … State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217 . The city also requires an occupation tax and license fee of its merchants, which are both collected at the same time by the collector.

Bank of Washington v. McAuliffe

676 S.W.2d 483 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1984

The circuit court affirmed the Board’s order. … Wayland, v.

State ex rel. Sitton v. Norman

406 S.W.3d 915 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 30, 2013

In State v. … Similarly, in State v. Sardeson, 174 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Mo.App.2005), and Hudson v.

Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Associates, Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co.

586 S.W.2d 310 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1979

V, § 10. … In Goldfarb v.

Kohner Props., Inc. v. Johnson

553 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 3, 2018

V, sec. 10. … See, e.g. , J.A.R. v. D.G.R. , 426 S.W.3d 624 , 629 (Mo. banc 2014) ; Brown v. Brown , 423 S.W.3d 784 , 788 & n.5 (Mo. banc 2014) (per curiam); St. Louis Cty. v.

City of Springfield v. Goff

918 S.W.2d 786 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 26, 1996

Sprague v. City of St. … of the board of health, require the mayor to name and the council to approve two members of the board, set terms and compensation for board members, pre *789 scribe duties of board members, and create the office of plumbing

Widow of Mackay v. Dillon

7 Mo. 7 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1841

rest on mere inhabitation, cultivation, and the usages and customs of the country, is distinctly declared by the supreme court of the United States in various decisions, and particularly reiterated in the case of Lucas v. … Did it embrace the commons as they existed under Cruzat’s administration, or as defined in 1806 by Mackay, and submitted to the board and recorder, and rejected by the majority of the board 1 The claim was confirmed, and

Gousetis v. Bange

425 S.W.2d 91 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 11, 1968

Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Company, Mo., 421 S.W.2d 255 , at page 260. My views as stated in Brown have not changed. Furthermore, we are admonished by other decisions of this court and by S.Ct. … Nevertheless, the law now is as declared by this court en banc in Brown v. St. Louis and by it I am bound. Having reiterated my view, I will now and henceforth concur without further ado.

Sappington v. Watson

50 Mo. 83 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1872

defendant swore to; and the members of the board were all arrested, gave bond for their appearance in court, and upon a hearing were discharged. … This instruction is unexceptionable and drawn up in the very language used by this court in Hill v. Palm, 38 Mo. 13 . .