Case law

State v. Empire Bottling Co.

261 Mo. 300 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 14, 1914

The main general conclusions reached by the referee board are as follows: “ (1). … It falls clearly within the principles enunciated in State v. Miksicek, 225 Mo. 561 , l. c. 572. The judgment is reversed and the defendant discharged. Williams, G., concurs.

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

101 Mo. 120 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1890

State Board, 64 Mo. 294 . … Co. v. Shackc lett, 30 Mo. 550 ; State v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 265 ; State v. Railroad, 60 Mo. 143 . It is not exempt, however, from municipal taxes imposed by authority of the state (City of St. Joseph v.

State v. Burns

280 S.W.2d 119 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1955

The other had brown, light brown hair and wore a topcoat. Some of the witnesses described his coat as gray, light gray in color; others as gray or tan, gray-tan, between a gray and a tan. … State v. Taylor, 134 Mo. 109, 153 , 35 S.W. 92, 102 ; State v. Brown, 360 Mo. 104 , 227 S.W.2d 646, 654 [21]. An instruction of this nature causes no harm and is generally given.

Otis v. Mechanics' Bank

35 Mo. 128 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1864

(Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551 ; Boyce v. Brown, 7 Barb. Sup. Ct. N.Y. 80.) The petition being defective, the inquiry remains whether the fault is one which is the subject of demurrer. … (Robinson v. Judd, 9 How. Pr., N. Y., 378; Peckham v. Smith, id. 436; Moore v. Smith, 10 id. 361; Forsyth v. Edmiston, 11 id. 408; Waller v. Raskan, 12 id. 28; Dorman v. Kellam, 4 Ab. Pr., N. Y., 202; Phillips v.

State ex rel. Hempstead v. Coste

36 Mo. 437 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1865

(Doty v. Brown, 4 Comst. 71.) The present suit cannot be maintained without permitting the facts to be tried again and found the other way. … State Trials, 538; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 85 -6; Castle v. Noyes, 4 Kernan, 329; Bates v. Stanton, 1 Duer, 79 .) The judgment is affirmed. Judge Holmes concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.

Thomas v. Reynolds

6 Mo. 462 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 15, 1840

I do not concur in this opin *467 ion,for the reasons given in my opinion in the cases of Brown v. Knox and Boggs; and Drake v. Rogers and Shrewsberry delivered at St. Louis last spring term. … Marshall in Anderson and Wilkins v Tompkins, 1, Brockenborough R. 456.

State v. Lewis

443 S.W.2d 186 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 14, 1969

In State v. … In State v.

Johnson v. Duensing

351 S.W.2d 27 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 13, 1961

In Hyde Park Amusement Co. v. … If the board orders the stock to be sold, it shall be done in a manner the board deems best for the benefit of the corporation and the stockholders. However, the sale shall be so had as to obtain the best price.

Bailey v. Kansas City

189 Mo. 503 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 15, 1905

[City of Tarkio v. Loyd, 179 Mo. l. c. 605; Inhabitants of Butler v. Robinson, 75 Mo. 192 .] … [Robertson v. Railroad, 84 Mo. l. c. 121; Danker v. Goodwin Mfg. Co., 102 Mo. App. l. c. 731.]

Asher v. Lombardi

877 S.W.2d 628 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 21, 1994

Pollard v. Board of Police Commissioners, 665 S.W.2d 333, 339 (Mo. banc 1984); United States Civil Service Commission v. … Pollard, 665 S.W.2d at 339 ; Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).

State Ex Rel. Sturdivant Bank v. Little River Drainage District

334 Mo. 753 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 3, 1934

In Meyer v. … But in Meyers v.

C & D Investment Co. v. Bestor

624 S.W.2d 835 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 10, 1981

The statutory system for review of assessments before the board of equalization and the state tax commission being full and orderly does not permit of any other action binding on the state. Horizons West Properties v. … The assessment may be appealed to the county board of equalization, § 138.060, and, if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the decision of the county board, that decision may be appealed to the state tax commission.

State v. Humfeld

253 Mo. 340 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 9, 1913

[State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112 ; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 232 ; State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 438 .] … Brown, P. J., and Paris, J., concur.

David E. Roland, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. St. Louis City Board of Election Commissioners, Jerry Hunter, Paul Maloney, Benjamin Phillips, Joseph Barbaglia, Marilyn Jobe, Leo G. Stoff, and Mary Wheeler-Jones, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 24, 2019

V, § 10; Rule 83.04. II. … .”); Frye v.

Loe v. Downing

325 S.W.2d 479 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1959

In Ellet v. … Brown, 164 Ala. 397 , 51 So, 360 , 137 Am.St.Rep. 61 .

Bobos Ex Rel. Enders v. Krey Packing Co.

317 Mo. 108 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 24, 1927

[See also Galba v. Payne, 253 S. … [Carr v. City of St. Joseph, 225 S. W. 922 ; Benjamin v. Railway, 245 Mo. 598 ; Beave v. Transit Co., 212 Mo. 331 ; Harrington v. Dunham, 273 Mo. 414 ; Hill v. Johnson, 249 S. W. 138 .] But it is clear that it was not.

Brownridge v. Leslie

450 S.W.2d 214 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 18, 1970

Following this, defendant’s counsel asked the following question: “As a matter of fact, she (Bertha Brown-ridge) was arrested for violating the signal, wasn’t she?” … Fisher v. Williams, supra, Blanford v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 266 S.W.2d 718, 1 . c. (722-723). In addition, the verdict and judgment in the case of Faught v.

Town of Canton v. Bank of Lewis County

338 Mo. 817 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 21, 1936

[McShane v. School District, 70 Mo. App. 624 ; Saleno v. … Joseph v. Security Bank of St.

In re Alexander

807 S.W.2d 70 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 9, 1991

Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467 , 101 S.W.2d 977, 981-82 (banc 1937). The authority to determine the applicant’s fitness to practice law is necessarily a function belonging to the judiciary. … Leimer v. Hulse, 352 Mo. 451 , 178 S.W.2d 335, 339 (1944).

Sly v. Union Depot Railroad

134 Mo. 681 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 16, 1896

That he was not wholly absolved from the exercise of care in boarding the car while it was moving at a rate of speed of from three to seven miles per hour, is, we think, too clear to admit of dispute. In Ridenhour v. … What has been said in no way conflicts with Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 , but is in perfect harmony with that case.