Case law

Prosecuting Attorney, 21st Judicial Circuit, ex rel. Marcellus Williams, Movant/Petitioner v. State of Missouri, and State of Missouri v. Marcellus Williams

Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 23, 2024

Brown v. Hamid, 856 16 S.W.2d 51, 56-57 (Mo. banc 1993). … Zobel v. Burrell, 167 S.W.3d 688, 691 (Mo. banc 2005). The circuit court's decision to not apply the spoliation doctrine is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Brown, 856 S.W.2d at 57.

Hulse v. Criger

363 Mo. 26 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 14, 1952

In Cowern v. … In this connection, we note a 1942 agreement approved in principle by the Board of Governors of the *44 American Bar Association and the Board of Directors of the National Association of Real Estate Boards (67 A.B.A.

State ex rel. Rolston v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

246 Mo. 512 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 10, 1912

S. 150 ; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97 ; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. l. c. 314; Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605 ; State v. Gregory, 170 Mo. l. c. 604, 605 ; State v. Cantwell, 179 Mo. l. c. 265; State v. … Tower, 185 Mo. l. c. 94; State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. l. c. 523; State ex inf. v.

White v. Boyne

324 Mo. 176 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1929

qualified, the board organized, etc., and elect a secretary and treasurer, who shall enter upon their respective duties. … [State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 243 Mo. 715 , l. c. 722; Moss Tie Co. v. Allen, 318 Mo. 440 .] The Springfield Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Fleener v. Consolidated School District No. 1, 238 S.

State ex rel. Heddens v. Rusk

236 Mo. 201 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 3, 1911

McManus v. Muench, 217 Mo. 124 ; and State ex rel. Ponath v. Muench, 230 Mo. 236 , that new or further exposition is out of place. … Respondent relies on Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210 , and Woodward v. Mastin, 106 Mo. 324 .

Phillips v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

270 Mo. 676 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 22, 1917

Louis Court of Appeals in Phillips v. Western Union Telegraph Company, supra. … The respondent has also cited the decision of this court In Banc in Maniaci v. Interurban Express Co., 266 Mo. 633 .

Kauzlarich v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co.

910 S.W.2d 254 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 21, 1995

Although the Court’s decisions in this area “point up the impossibility of laying down a precise rule to distinguish ‘substance’ from ‘procedure,’ ” Brown v. … Id.; Accord Wilson v.

State v. Richardson

340 Mo. 680 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 11, 1937

Davis told me that he was on the running board talking to him, standing on the running board, talking to them when Mr. … [State v. Shawley, 334 Mo. 352 , 67 S. W. (2d) 74 , l. c. 86 (23, 25); State v. Majors, 329 Mo. 148 , 44 S. W. (2d) 163 , l. c. 166 (5); State v. Buckner, 80 S.

Holland Realty & Power Co. v. City of St. Louis

282 Mo. 180 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 10, 1920

Louis, are officials of the city and constitute- its Board of Public Improvements. … The court held it was improbable the space eighty feet above the surface would be thus needed; that the statute should not be interpreted to vest the board with control at that height. [Wandsworth Board of Works v.

State v. Harris

363 S.W.2d 580 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1962

Taylor v. Cumpton, 362 Mo. 199 , 240 S.W.2d 877 (1951); State on inf. Dalton v. Dearing, 364 Mo. 475 , 263 S.W.2d 381 (1954); State on inf. Dalton v. … Turner v. Fitzgerald, (1869) 44 Mo. 425 ; Bouldin v. Davis, 197 N.C. 731 , 150 S.E. 507 ; 62 C.J.S.

State Ex Rel. Jacoby v. Missouri Valley Drainage District

353 Mo. 1005 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 5, 1945

She brings this action against the district and against the members of its board of supervisors to compel the latter to levy a tax for the purpose of paying the judgment. … Emerson v. City of Mound City, 335 Mo. 702 , 73 S. W. (2d) 1017 , supra; and Coleman v. Kansas City, 351 Mo. 254 , 173 S. W. (2d) 572 . Also see our recent decision in State ex rel. County of St. Louis v. St.

Cohen v. Kyler

27 Mo. 122 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1858

(Hood v. Mathis, 21 Mo. 308 ; Bancroft v. Wardwell, 13 John. 488 .) … (Plumb v. Miller, 6 Cow. 665 ; Kirman v. Latour, 1 Har. & J. 289 ; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Verm. 124 ; 1 Sug. Vend. 37.)

State v. Barker

294 Mo. 303 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1922

[State v. Stenzel, 220 S.W. l.c. (Mo.) 884; Christine v. Luyties, 280 Mo. l.c. 431, 217 S.W. l.c. 60; Hayes v. McLaughlin, 217 S.W. l.c. 264; Frick v. Insurance Co., 279 Mo. l.c. 157-8, 213 S.W. l.c. 855; Vahldick v. … *Page 317 In State v.

State v. Hampton

959 S.W.2d 444 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 23, 1997

See, e.g., State v. Smulls, 935 S.W.2d 9, 22 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 105 (Mo. banc 1994). 33 . State v. … Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. banc 1995); State v.

State v. Ervin

979 S.W.2d 149 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 3, 1998

BROWN: But in most cases you do have a moral belief against the death penalty, is that correct? JUROR MELICK: Yes. MR. BROWN: All right. … State v. Mahurin, 799 S.W.2d 840, 846 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 825 , 112 S.Ct. 90 , 116 L.Ed.2d 62 (1991); State v. Brown, 949 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Mo.App.1997).

State ex rel. Wyatt v. Hoyt

123 Mo. 348 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 19, 1894

Defendant never had a hearing before the county board of equalization, nor was the matter of his assessment ever brought before said board. … Charles, 47 Mo. 462 , and cases cited; Railroad v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 483 .

Union Electric Co. v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority

555 S.W.2d 29 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 12, 1977

City of Baltimore v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., supra; State on Inf. of Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, 364 Mo. 974 , 270 S.W.2d 44 (banc 1954); Annbar Associates v. … No facilities for the distribution of electricity shall be placed in a public thoroughfare of the city by any person except upon application filed with the Board of Public Improvements, which Board is “authorized * * * to

Ex parte Nelson

253 Mo. 627 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 24, 1913

Louis v. Meintz, 107 Mo. 611 .] Costs in Missouri being, therefore, purely creatures of the statute, enactments in relation thereto must be strictly construed. [State ex rel. v. Seibert, 130 Mo. l. c. 217; St. … Louis & Gulf Railway Co. v. Cape Girardeau, etc. Railway Co., 126 Mo. App. 272 ; Lucas v. Brown, 127 Mo. App. 645 .]

State v. Friend

711 S.W.2d 508 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 17, 1986

Id.; State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694 (Mo. banc 1983). A statute is presumed constitutional and will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly and undoubtedly violates some constitutional provision. State v. … Brown, supra. The burden of establishing its unconstitutionality rests upon the party questioning it. State v. Hampton, 653 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. banc 1983).

State v. Kemp

365 Mo. 368 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 29, 1955

Thompson v. Board of Regents, 305 Mo. 57 , 264 S.W. 698, 700 . See also Greenhalgh v. Woolworth, 361 Pa. 543 , 64 A.2d 659, 664 [6]; Public Market Co. of Portland v. … Thompson v. Board of Regents, 305 Mo. 57 , 264 S.W. 698, 700 .