Case law

Maggard v. State

471 S.W.2d 161 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 13, 1971

Brown, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 743, 746 ) and the question of effective assistance of counsel must be determined from all the circumstances as they existed at the time the attorney was required to act. State v. … Brown, supra, loc. cit. 746.

Kuchta v. Kuchta

636 S.W.2d 663 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 2, 1982

Brown, supra, 544 P.2d at 561. See, e.g., Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.1976). … Representative thereof are: Van Loan v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272 , 569 P.2d 214 (1977); In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838 , 126 Cal. Rptr. 633 , 544 P.2d 561 (1976); Linson v.

State v. Mayo

487 S.W.2d 539 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1972

State v. Higginbotham, 335 Mo. 102 , 72 S.W.2d 65 ; State v. May, Mo., 479 S.W.2d 451 . … State v. Swisher, 364 Mo. 157 , 260 S.W.2d 6 ; State v. Dees, 276 S.W.2d 201 ; State v. Hartwell, Mo., *541 293 S.W.2d 313 ; State v. Brown, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 818 . The argument is consistent with the existing law.

State v. Timeus

233 Mo. 308 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 7, 1911

Walker, 194 Mo. 367 ; State v. Bragg, 207 Mo. 587 ; State v. Cutberth, 203 Mo. 579 ; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198 ; State v. Brannon, 212 Mo. 173 .] … Ferriss and Brown, JJ., concur.

Duhring v. Duhring

20 Mo. 174 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1854

It was held in Thornton v. Dixon, 3 Brown’s Ch. Rep. 199, that real estate, used for purposes of a partnership trade, shall go to the heir, and' not to the executor. … Eor this last doctrine, making an agreement necessary to change the nature of the partnership real property to personal, the author cites Coles v. Coles, 15 John. Rep. 159 ; the case from Brown’s Ch. Rep. of Thompson v.

State v. Brooks

92 Mo. 542 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1887

State v. Burk, 89 Mo. 635 ; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345: State v. Lett, 85 Mo. 52 . … In the cases of State v. McDonald and State v.

Farthing v. Sams

296 Mo. 442 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1922

Other authorities to a similar effect are: Sterrett v. Sweeney, 128 Am. St. (Idaho) 68, l.c. 74; Brown v. Hathaway (Va.), 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 95, l.c. 98; L. N. Railroad Co. v. Burkhart, 46 L.R.A. … (N.S.) 687, and note; Bruner v. Martin, 14 Am. Eng. Ann. Cases, 39; 17 R.C.L. p. 700. Copious notes are appended to the *Page 450 case of Brown v.

Kansas City v. Ward

134 Mo. 172 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 5, 1896

Quill v. Indianapolis, 124 Ind. 292 ; Faller v. Heath, 89 Ill. 296 ; Fletcher v. Oshkosh, 18 Wis. 228 ; Silkman v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 555 ; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. [4 Ed.], sec. 482. … Kiley v. St. Joseph, 67 Mo. 491 ; Saxton v. St. Joseph, 60 Mo. 153 . 5.

Welp v. Bogy

320 Mo. 672 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 3, 1928

Edith Fontana were waiting to board a westbound Wellston car. … Attention is directed to the following cases: McKenzie v. Randolph, 257 S. W. 126 ; Smith v. Railroad, 126 Mo. App. 120 , 103 S. W. 593 ; Heinzle v. Railroad, 182 Mo. 528 , 81 S. W. 848 .

Midstate Oil Co. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights

679 S.W.2d 842 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1984

See, e.g., Board of Education of the City of Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 176 Conn. 533 , 409 A.2d 1013 (1979); Giles v. Family Court, 411 A.2d 599 (Del. 1980); A.P. … Princeton University Board of Trustees, 77 N.J. 55 , 389 A.2d 465 (1978); Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n, 66 Ohio St.2d 192 , 421 N.E.2d 128 (1981); State v.

City of St. Louis v. Nash

266 Mo. 523 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 6, 1916

And in each aisle there is a board walk eight feet wide composed of one by two boards laid flat on the ground and nailed to cross pieces sunk in the ground. … Stanley, 150 Mass. 6 ; Favro v. State, 73 Am. St. 950; Williams v. State, 70 Am. St. 82; State v. Poole, 65 Kan. 713 ; People v. Stickman, 34 Cal. 242 .

State v. Martin

491 S.W.2d 299 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 12, 1973

In State v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 280 S. … State v.

Gutta Percha Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Kansas City Fire Department Supply Co.

149 Mo. 538 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 9, 1899

[Barton v. Sitlington, 128 Mo. 164 ; Rock Island Bank v. Powers, 134 Mo. 432 .] … [Bigelow v. Stringer, 40 Mo. 195 ; Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74 ; McDonald & Co. v. Hoover, 142 Mo. loc. cit. 498.]

Hach v. Rollins

158 Mo. 182 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 12, 1900

Y.) 410; Baird v. Stearne, 15 Phila. 339 ; Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns Ch. l. c. 488; Cranson v. Cranson, 4 Mich. 230 ; Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich. 415 ; Duncan’s Appeal, 43 Pa. St. 67; Jenny v. … [Curd v. Brown, 148 Mo. l. c. 95, and cases cited.] The common law disqualification of a spouse has been abolished in three respects (not applicable here), by section 4656, Revised Statutes 1899.

Alexander v. Schreiber

10 Mo. 460 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1847

In the case of Browning vs. … Munns, (3 Lev. 46) cited in the argument of the case of Browning vs. Wright, seems to have been determined on a similar principle.

Missouri Home Savings and Loan Association v. Allen

452 S.W.2d 109 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 9, 1970

They cite 4 American Law of Property 299, § 16.128; 2 Wiltsie on Mortgage Foreclosure (5th Ed.) 1136, § 703; Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580 , 41 S.W. 960 ; McFarland v. … Powell, Mo.App., 256 S.W. 124 ; Empire Trust Co. v. Hitchcock, 233 Mo.App. 581 , 123 S.W.2d 565 ; Grace v. Gill, 136 Mo.App. 186 , 116 S.W. 442 ; Bensieck v. Cook, 110 Mo. 173 , 19 S.W. 642 ; Nelson v. Brown, supra.

Thompson v. Greeley

107 Mo. 577 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

Bank v. … Bent v. Priest, 86 Mo. 482 ; Slattery v. Trans. Co., 91 Mo. 217 ; Ward v. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445 ; Hodges v. Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312; Smith v. Hurd, 12 Metc. 371 ; Attorney General v. Ins. Co., 2 Johns.

Wood v. Steamboat Fleetwood

22 Mo. 560 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1856

seems to be, that such circumstances as would lead a court of equity to set aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake or surprise, may be shown at law to destroy the effect of a receiptand this principle was acted upon in Brown … v.

St. Louis Catering Co. v. Glancy

294 Mo. 438 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 16, 1922

[Bank v. Tiger Tail Mill & Land Co., supra; O’Toole v. Lowenstein, supra; Schwald v. Brunjes, supra; 38 Cyc. 2045.] … In Wittmor v.

Thummel v. Surplus

262 Mo. 651 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 19, 1914

[Rourke v. Railroad, 221 Mo. 46, 62 ; Smart v. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 162, 204 ; Barr v. Hays, 172 Mo. App. 591 , 600 and cases cited.] *657 Self-Defense: Threatening Language. II. … The foregoing opinion of Brown, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur.