Case law

State ex rel. Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Public Service Commission

333 Mo. 426 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 3, 1933

Ponath v. Hamilton (Mo.), 240 S. W. 445 ; Custer v. Kroeger, 313 Mo. 130 , 280 S. W. 1035 , 44 A. L. R. 1328; Bushman v. Barlow, 321 Mo. 1052 , 15 S. W. (2d) 329 ; Kinnerk v. Smith, 328 Mo. 513 , 41 S. … Egan on the board of directors of the Laclede Company has already resulted in litigation.

Bushong v. Taylor

82 Mo. 660 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1884

Church v. Shulze, 61 Ind. 511 ; Linn v. Carson, supra; Price v. M. E. Church, 4 Ohio 515 ; Trustees M. E. Church v. Garvey, 53 Ill. 401 ; Van Houten v. Dutch Church, 17 N. J. Eq. 126. … V.

State v. Division 1287 of the Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway, & Motor Coach Employees

361 S.W.2d 33 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 8, 1962

State Board of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798 , 244 S.W.2d 75 ; State v. … State Board of Mediation v.

State Ex Rel. Reardon v. Hartmann

331 Mo. 771 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 16, 1932

On August 11, the board of election commissioners of said city declared relator elected to said office. … Copeland v. Wurdeman, 295 Mo. 458 , 245 S. W. 551 , and State ex rel. Dawson v. Falkenhainer, 321 Mo. 1042 , 15 S. W. (2d) 342 . It follows that the provisional rule in prohibition issued herein should be discharged.

Eminence Land & Mining Co. v. Current River Land & Cattle Co.

187 Mo. 420 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1905

Brown, one of plaintiff’s attorneys, but Mr. Brown said that Mr. Shuck was mistaken. Mr. Brown was the purchaser at the tax sale and was a witness for the plaintiff. … [State ex rel. v. Staley, 76 Mo. 158 ; Quigley v. Bank, 80 Mo. 289 ; Charles v. Morrow, 99 Mo. 638 .]

Smelser v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

262 Mo. 25 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 24, 1914

In Hegberg v. Railroad, supra, and Johnson v. … Brown and Far Is, JJconcur in paragraph three and the result.

Page Western, Inc. v. Community Fire Protection District

636 S.W.2d 65 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 2, 1982

As to the second question, § 321.220, RSMo 1978 provides: Powers of board. — For the purpose of providing fire protection to the property within the district, the district and, on its behalf, the board shall have the following … Hewlett v. Womach, supra; Vest v. City of Kansas City, supra; see Nickols v. North Kansas City, 358 Mo. 402 , 214 S.W.2d 710 (1948); City of Maryville v.

State v. Hendrix

310 S.W.2d 852 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 10, 1958

The defendant, Martin Jones and Jesse Brown were “celling” together in cell No. 156 of B Hall, in the Missouri Penitentiary. … Jesse Brown did not seize upon this opportunity.

State v. Tarantola

461 S.W.2d 848 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 11, 1971

Brown which temporarily blinded him, and after forcing Mr. Brown out of the automobile appellant drove it away. … As stated in State v.

Kansas City Life Insurance v. Rainey

353 Mo. 477 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 5, 1944

See: Gallagher v. Simmons Hardward Co., 214 Mo. App. 111 , 258 S. W. 16 ; Brown v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. (Mo. App.), 143 S. W. (2d) 343 ; Binswanger v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., 244 Mo. … Davis v. Rossi, 326 Mo. 911 , 34 S. W. (2d) 8 ; Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 58 , 158 S. W. 624 .

Barnes v. Imhoff

238 Mo. 598 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 23, 1911

BROWN, C. The facts in this case are identical with those shown by the record in Butler v.

State v. Wakefield

73 Mo. 549 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1881

Pate, or any other person in the gambling business, for the purpose of paying the same to any member of the Board of Police Commissioners of the city of St. Louis. I (meaning the said Alonson B. … Commonwealth v. Smith, 11 Allen 243 , cited in the opinion delivered by the court of appeals, is directly in point.

State v. Wilson

248 S.W.2d 857 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 12, 1952

He further testified that he removed from the bed sheet taken from the prosecutrix a number of brown woolen fibers which were identical with the brown woolen fibers used in the manufacture of appellant's trousers. … State v. Hubbard, 223 Mo. 80 , 122 S.W. 694 ; State v. Davis, 237 Mo. 237 , 140 S.W. 902 ; State v. Hutsel, 357 Mo. 386 , 208 S.W.2d 227 .

State Ex Rel. School District of Affton v. Smith

336 Mo. 1054 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 24, 1935

In the case of Kiley v. … Cranor; Stadler v. Roth; Galbreath v. Newton, supra.” The following cases are to the same effect: Blaisdell v. Steamboat Wm. Pope, 19 Mo. 157 ; Miles v. Davis, 19 Mo. 408 ; Stadler v. Roth, 59 Mo. 400 ; State ex rel. v.

State Ex Rel. Bulloch v. Seier

771 S.W.2d 71 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1989

Greer, 619 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Collins, 619 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1981); Brown v. State, 619 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Helton, 619 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. … I rather agree that Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980) and Brown v.

State Ex Inf. Roberts v. Buckley

533 S.W.2d 551 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 9, 1976

McKittrick v. Whittle, 333 Mo. 705 , 63 S.W.2d 100 (1933). In that case a first cousin by affinity of a school board director was named or appointed as a teacher for that district. … The board member, who was a cousin of the teacher, plus another board member, voted for the appointment. The third member voted against such employment.

State ex rel. Kevin Hillman, Relator v. The Honorable John D. Beger, and State ex rel. Erica J. Long, Relator v. The Honorable Fred Copeland

566 S.W.3d 600 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 13, 2019

Healea v. … Springs v.

Hanford v. Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n

122 Mo. 50 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 14, 1894

State ex rel. v. Benefit Association, 6 Mo. App. 163 ; State ex rel. v. Benevolent Society, 72 Mo. 146 . The opinion in the last, named case was promulgated in 1880. … In the case of McConnell v.

State v. Moore

106 Mo. 480 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

State v. Broderick, 59 Mo. 318 . II. The instruction, authorizing a conviction of petit larceny, was properly refused. … State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 365 . Finding that the court and jury committed no error in the trial of defendant the judgment is affirmed. All concur.

Ready v. Steamboat Highland Mary

17 Mo. 461 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 15, 1853

Ready filed a complaint, under the statute, against the Highland Mary, charging that he had taken passage on the boat at Rocheport to go to Kansas, and that he had taken with him on board the boat a horse, to be transported … In Collier v. Valentine, 11 Mo.