Case law

City of Carondelet v. Wolfert

39 Mo. 305 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1866

In the cases heretofore decided, viz., Taylor v. City of Carondelet, 22 Mo. 105 ; City of Carondelet v. Lannan, 26 Mo. 461 , and Huth’s Adm’r v. … In the cases above referred to, as well as to the additional case of Graham v.

Crowl ex rel. Crowl v. American Linseed Co.

255 Mo. 305 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 3, 1914

App. 371 ; Anable v. McDonald Land & Mining Co., 144 Mo. App. 303 ; Nold v. Ozenberger, 152 Mo. App. 439 ; Mann v. Doerr, 222 Mo. 1 ; National Handle Co. v. Huffman, 140 Mo. App. 634 ; Sawyer v. Burris, 141 Mo. … [Williams v. Ransom, 234 Mo. l. c. 66; Stid v. Railroad, 236 Mo. l. c. 398; Gardner v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 223 Mo. 389, 417 .]

State Ex Rel. Drainage District No. 28 of New Madrid County v. Thompson

328 Mo. 728 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 3, 1931

The statute does not give a board of ¡ supervisors jurisdiction over 'land beyond the confines of its district.. ' It necessarily follows that the board of supervisors óf the reorganized district would have no authority- … [Egyptian Levee Company v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495, 496 ; Adams v. Lindell, 72 Mo. 198 ; St. Joseph v. Owen, 110 Mo. *739 445, 19 S. W. 713 ; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 543 , 48 S. W. 629 ; State ex rel. v.

State ex rel. Mining v. Davis

391 S.W.2d 896 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 14, 1965

The petition, after stating generally the same matters recited in Tomlinson et al. v. … Breshears v. Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System, Mo.Sup., 362 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1-3). Our conclusion in Tomlinson, supra, regarding the nature of plaintiffs’ interests would preclude a showing of such right.

City of St. Louis v. Young

248 Mo. 346 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 28, 1913

“Whatever of incongruity” (says Brown, C., in St. Louis v. Henning, 235 Mo. l. c. 51-2) “there may be in a rule which creates a conclusive presumption that the wandering vagrant who sojourns for a day in St. … From these discern all: Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. l. c. 413; State v. Baty, 166 Mo. 561 ; Clay v. Publishing Company, 200 Mo. l. c. 672-3; Stark v. Zehnder, 204 Mo. l. c. 448-9; Gilchrist v.

Missouri Real Estate & Loan Co. v. Curd

324 Mo. 539 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 3, 1930

Such cases are Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55 ; Trust Co. v. Blakely, 274 Mo. 52 , 202 S. W. 402 ; Parker-Washington Co. v. Dodd, 305 Mo. 171 , 264 S. W. 651 ; and Hesse-Rix Co. v. … Charles ex rel. v. Deemar, 174 Mo. 122, 124 , 73 S.

Greenabaum v. Elliott

60 Mo. 25 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1875

Mansfield, ( 17 Mass., 394 ) involves the same principle decided in Rowe v. … Brown, 47 Id., 105.) The case here is stronger.

State v. Cline

264 Mo. 416 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 30, 1915

[State v. Meyers, supra.] … All the judges concur, Brown, J., in result only.

Estate of Cupples v. Koeln

272 Mo. 465 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 3, 1917

BROWN, C. This is a proceeding begun in the probate court for the city of St. … [Fosburgh v. Rogers, 114 Mo. 122 ; Hockaday v. Lynn, 200 Mo. 456 .]

Sone v. Williams

130 Mo. 530 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 19, 1895

Coglan v. *556 Beard, 67 Cal. 303 ; People ex rel. v. Livingston, 79 N. Y. 287 ; Ex Parte Brown, 97 Cal. 83. The supreme court of Kansas in Hudson v. … A close reading of People ex rel. v. Livingston, 79 N. Y. 279, and Hudson v.

Gordon v. Leavis

88 Mo. 378 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1885

The case of Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 187 , is to the same effect. In the case of Cape Girardeau County v. … Murphy, 33 Mo. 184 and Billon et al. v.

State ex rel. Vastine v. McDonald

38 Mo. 529 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1866

A later statute, which is general and affirmative, does not abrogate a former, which is particular, without negative words are used, or unless the two acts are irreconcilably inconsistent—Deters v. … Renick, 37 Mo. 597 ; Dwar. 532; Brown v. County Court, 21 Penn. Stat. 37 ; O’Neil v. Commonwealth, id. 427.

State v. Cummings

189 Mo. 626 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 20, 1905

Leissmeister and asked her if I could get board there; I did not get board at first, but went back the second time and she took me in; got a room and board. My husband lived there with me. … [State v. Banks, 118 Mo. 117 ; State v. Riney, 137 Mo. 102 .] Numerous complaints are urged upon the action of the trial court in the admission of testimony • at the trial.

State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. City of Kansas

89 Mo. 34 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1886

Louis, 80 Mo. 379 ; and Sheehan v. The Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155 . … The addition of the-word damaged was evidently designed to provide for a' class of cases like the case of Gurno v. City of St.

Wine & Spirits Specialty, Inc. v. Daniel

666 S.W.2d 416 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 20, 1984

In Rice v. … Brown-Forman, supra.

State v. Mallon

75 Mo. 355 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1882

State v. Porter, 26 Mo. 206 ; State v. … The following statement in his address to the jury is •complained of: “ Their theory is that a soberer man than Mallon or Brown got the money, but you are not to guess at this matter.

Stith v. St. Louis Public Service Co.

363 Mo. 442 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 13, 1952

The• evidence, viewed most favorably to plaintiff, was: Plaintiff intended to board a northbound streetcar; he stood about 2' east of the handrail talking with Johnson, who was waiting for a southbound streetcar; plaintiff … See Brown v. Reorganization Inv. Co., 350 Mo. 407 , 166 S. W. 2d 476, 484 ; Woods v. Chinn, (Mo. App.) 224 S. W. 2d 583, 587 .

State v. Maggard

250 Mo. 335 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 20, 1913

[State v. Hill, 65 Mo. 84 ; State v. Turner, 106 Mo. 272 ; State v. Bauerle, 145 Mo. 1 ; State v. Woolard, 111 Mo. 248 ; State v. Taylor, 134 Mo. 109 .] … Brown, P. J., and Walker, J., concur.

State v. Napolis

436 S.W.2d 645 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 10, 1969

In the recent case of Kibby v. … In State v.

Dunnegan v. Gallop

369 S.W.2d 206 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 8, 1963

Prior to Laws 1945, pp. 945-957, §§ 1-37, Missouri had, among others a State Board of Health (Ch. 57, Art. I, RSMo 1939), a Board of Managers of the State Eleemosynary Institutions (Ch. 51, Art. … Haley v. Horwitz, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 796 [3-5]; Fowler v. Terminal Rd.