Case law

Hill v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co.

90 Mo. 103 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1886

The facts upon which the demand against’ the defendant for board of the parties named was based should have been alleged. In Butts v. … of those parties, and if, in the case of Butts v.

State Ex Rel. Consolidated School District No. 2 of Pike County v. Haid

328 Mo. 739 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 5, 1931

Moss v. Hamilton, 303 Mo. 302 , 260 S.W. 466 ; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Northwestern Bank, 290 Mo. 311 , 235 S.W. 435 ; Ib., 315 Mo. 849 , 288 S.W. 359 ; Kellogg v. Moore, 271 Mo. 189 , 196 S.W. 15 ; Blodgett v. … Waddell v. Johnson, 316 Mo. 21 . 296 S.W. 806 ; Black v. *Page 749 Early, 208 Mo. 281 , 106 S.W. 1084 ; Sayre v. Tompkins, 23 Mo. 443 ; Gray v. School District (Mo. App.), 28 S.W.2d 683 .]

State on the Information of Ellis Ex Rel. Patterson v. Ferguson

333 Mo. 1177 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 19, 1933

Brown, Prosecuting Attorney, v. McMillan, 108 Mo. 153 , 38 S. W. 784 ; State ex rel. Brown, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Town v. Westport, 116 Mo. 582, 605 , 22 S. W. 888 ; State ex rel. Weed v. … -Gen., v. Whittle, infra.]

Rosenheim v. Hartsock

90 Mo. 357 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1886

Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 504. III. In the case at bar, all the conditions necessary to invoke equitable interposition were fully supplied by the agreed case:' “Mrs. … O' Reilly v. Nicholson, 45 Mo. 163 ; Gray v. Bowles, 74 Mo. 419 ; State ex rel. v. Donegan, 83 Mo. 374 ; Yeoman v. Younger, 83 Mo. 424 ; Hughes, Adm'r, v. Hardesty, 13 Bush, 364 ; Mcllwrath v.

State v. Finley

234 Mo. 603 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 23, 1911

[State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112 ; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 202 ; State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 438 .] … Ferriss, J., and Brown, J., concur.

State v. Banks

73 Mo. 592 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1881

State v. Cooper, 71 Mo. 436 . He may, even in a civil cause, testify whenever it is material to the issue so to do, with what intention he did a certain act. Van Sickle v. Brown, 68 Mo. 627 , and cases cited. … Couley v. State, 12 Mo. 462 .

State Ex Inf. Wallach v. Loesch

350 Mo. 989 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 25, 1943

Appellant recognizes the rule that a legislature may grant to boards and bureaus power to promulgate rules and regulations. See State v. … Frank v. Tegethoff, 89 S.W.2d 666 , l.c. 669 (3), 338 Mo. 328 ; Acker v. Baldwin et al., 115 P.2d 455 , 18 Cal.2d 341 ; Board of Com'rs. of Vanderburgh County v.

Garrett v. Ferguson Admr's

9 Mo. 124 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 15, 1845

In Rees v. … In the case of Rees v.

Tibby v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

82 Mo. 292 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1884

Welsh to my left, one on each side of the foot board on the top of the car; I was sitting on this board. When the jar came it threw me in the same direc *296 tion it did Mr. Tibby and Mr. … Clark v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 447 ; Sturgeon v. Railroad Co., 65 Mo. 569 ; Graham v. *301 Railroad Co., 66 Mo. 536 . This rule in its application totbe carriage of passengers, has never been relaxed.

Sconce v. George Surmeyer Lumber Co.

258 Mo. 616 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 2, 1914

And in the same case, commenting on Utter v. … Hawkins, 17 Ind. 550, 552 ; Allison v. Hubbell, Id. 559, 564-6 ; Smith v. Brown, 28 Miss. 810 .

State v. Roller

77 Mo. 120 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1882

Each covers the same ground on that subject, and it was held in Smith v. … Citing Bartlet v. King, 12 Mass. 537 ; Nichols v. Squire, 5 Pick. 168 ; Com. v. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37 .

State Ex Rel. Voss v. Davis

418 S.W.2d 163 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1967

Bradshaw v. … Attorney General v.

Christopher Cole v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 10, 2025

Cole testified that, on the day of the accident, he attempted to board the second locomotive, believing there was adequate space for him to board safely. … AJKJ, Inc. v.

Corrigan v. Kansas City

211 Mo. 608 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 13, 1908

[Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172 ; Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 259 ; Kansas City v. Bacon, 157 Mo. 450 ; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. … V.

Community Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Director of Revenue

752 S.W.2d 794 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 17, 1988

Lavin v. Hackensack Board of Education, 90 N.J. 145, 154 , 447 A.2d 516 (N.J.1982), cited in Continental Trailways, Inc. v. Director, 102 N.J. 526 , 509 A.2d 769, 781 (N.J.1986). … Brown Group, Inc. v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 649 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. banc 1983).

Rutherford v. Heddens

82 Mo. 388 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1884

The case first cited is the State v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law 435. A law of that State provided that: “ In any city where a board of assessment and revision of taxes now exists, such board shall,” etc. … In Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Penn.

State v. Carlson

325 Mo. 698 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 11, 1930

. *703 *702 V. It is further claimed that some of the evidence in relation to the speed at which the defendant was driving was given by *703 witnesses at a distance from where the collision took place. … There was no intention to surprise and no surprise, and no injury to the defendant by the failure to endorse Harry Brown's name on the indictment. VII.

State v. Winfrey

337 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 12, 2011

See, e.g., Martinez v. … Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Mo. banc 1993) (defining the test for logical relevancy). At trial, the officer who testified about the break-in of Mr. Winfrey’s vehicle at the towing lot did not testify that Mr.

Asarco, Inc. v. McHenry

679 S.W.2d 863 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 20, 1984

Co. v. Kuehle, 482 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Mo.1972). It was designed to protect taxpayers from hardships caused exclusively by the above mentioned increases. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. … See Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Jones, 544 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.1976); Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Feuerstein, 529 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.1975); Missouri Pacific R.R. v.

State ex rel. Walker v. Bus

33 L.R.A. 616 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1896

The charter of the public school corporation has this provision: “No member of the board of aldermen, or board of delegates, or any person holding office under the city of St. … V.