Case law

Prague v. Eddy

358 Mo. 327 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 8, 1948

In support of his contention he cites Carle v. Akin (Mo.), 87 S. W. (2d) 406 , and Brown v. Toedebush Transfer Co., 354 Mo. 611 , 190 S. W. (2d) 239 , Those cases are not in point. In Carle v. … In Brown v. Toedebush Transfer Co., an instruction submitted as the proximate cause of the collision the driving of defendant on the wrong-side of the road.

Chouteau v. Eckert

7 Mo. 16 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1841

Charles, *18 s0 ^ar as ^ depends upon documentary evidence, is the same that contained in the case of Bird v. Montgomery, 6 Mo, Rep. p. 510. … There seem to be no questions arising in this case, which were not involved in the case of Bird v.

Mathieson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

219 Mo. 542 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 13, 1909

The Supreme Court of Arkansas announced the same rule as to the laws of Texas in Brown v. Wright, 58 Ark. l. c. 26: “It is insisted that the money became the property of the husband by the rule of the common law. … [Savage v. O’Neil, 44 N. Y. 298 ; Davison v. Gibson, 56 Fed. 443 , 5 C. C. A. 543 ; Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 252 ; Flato v. Mulhall, 72 Mo. 522 ; Brown v. Wright, 58 Ark. 20 , 22 S. W. 1022 , 21 L. R.

D'Oench v. Gillioz

346 Mo. 179 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 7, 1940

[See Caldwell v. Eubanks, 326 Mo. 185 , 30 S.W.2d 976 .] … [We also ruled a similar situation in Moberly v. Leonard, 339 Mo. 791 , 99 S.W.2d 58 ; see also Sturdivant Bank v. Houck (Mo. App.), 47 S.W.2d 135 .]

Langstaff v. City of Webster Groves

246 Mo. 223 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 30, 1912

BROWN, C. This is á snit for twenty thousand dollars damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff from falling off a defective sidewalk in defendant city. … [Noble v. Brinson, 231 Mo. 640 ; Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341 , and cases cited.]

State v. Crab

121 Mo. 554 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 8, 1894

State v. Foster, 115 Mo. 448 ; State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. 340 ; State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243 ; State v. Maloney, 118 Mo. 112 . … Rep. 440 ; People v. Chacon, 102 N. Y. 669 ; Quin v. Loyd, 41 N. Y. 349 .

Little River Drainage District v. Friedlein

350 Mo. 218 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 8, 1942

See Rauch v. … Authority is vested in the board of supervisors to issue bonds.

Glover v. Herald Co.

549 S.W.2d 858 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 11, 1977

In this capacity she attended a meeting of the Board of Aldermen on July 6,1973, at which members of the board debated the merits of a bill to regulate the equipment required at clinics performing abortions. Mrs. … Amant v.

Faulkenberry v. Boyd

356 Mo. 267 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 21, 1947

That as to answering paragraph 9 of defendants and hearing before Brown Harris, Judge, same being case in equity to set aside *Page 271 foreclosure herein, and heard August 3, 1942, plaintiff states at close of hearing the … Defendants' plea of res judicata must, therefore, be sustained. 34 C.J., page 742, et seq.; Hunter v. Delta Realty Co., 350 Mo. 1123 , 169 S.W.2d 936 , l.c. 940 (11). The judgment is affirmed.

Reagan v. County Court

226 Mo. 79 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 1, 1910

This question we have recently reviewed in the case of Brown v. Patterson, 224 Mo. 639 . … No better illustration can be cited than Henry County v. Salmon, supra.

Drew v. Platt

329 Mo. 442 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 21, 1931

[Lewellen v. Lewellen, 319 Mo. 854 , 5 S.W.2d 4 ; Devoto v. Devoto (Mo. Sup.), 326 Mo. 511 , 31 S.W.2d 805 ; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 325 Mo. 1161 , 30 S.W.2d 63 .] … The opinion in Orchard v.

Evans v. Wilder

5 Mo. 313 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 15, 1838

Brown, but by J. K. Walker, in his own name. 2. Because it was not filed in the clerk’s office in ten days after it was made, as the law required. 3. … That this sub-stilutioa is allowable by law. see the case of Glasscock v. Bartlett, etal. 4 vol. Mo.

Gill v. Balis

72 Mo. 424 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1880

The case of Railway Co. v. … So in the case of Spackman v. Evans, L. R., 3 H. L.

Shipley v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co.

712 S.W.2d 375 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 17, 1986

Co. v. Leggett, 284 S.W.2d 586 (Mo.1955). … Whitehead v. Farmers’ Fire and Lightning Mut. Ins. Co., 227 Mo.App. 891 , 60 S.W.2d 65, 69 (1933).

Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. Director of Revenue

47 S.W.3d 346 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 20, 2001

Gehrs v. Director of Revenue, 965 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Mo.App.1998). See also Brown- *355 Forman Distillers Corp. v. Stewart, 520 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1975). . Soliday, 861 S.W.2d at 147 . . … State Board of *359 Registration for the Healing Arts v. Warren, 820 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Mo.App. 1991).

Householder v. City of Kansas

83 Mo. 488 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1884

The case of Fusz v. … Va. 402 ; in Blanchard v.

Soulard v. City of St. Louis

36 Mo. 546 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1865

(Thayer v. Boston, 19 Pick. 511 ; S. P., Smith v. Birmingham Gas Co., 1 Adolph & Ellis, 526 ; Eastern R.R. Co. v. Brown, 2 Eng. L. & E. 406 ; Underwood v. Newport Lyceum, 5 B. Mon. 130 ; Boom v. … It was there held on the authority of Jones v.

Gillen v. City of St. Louis

345 S.W.2d 69 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 10, 1961

Hiltner v. Kansas City, supra, 293 S.W.2d 422, 425 ; Brown v. City of Craig, 350 Mo. 836 , 168 S.W.2d 1080, 1082 ; Blackburn v. City of St. Louis, supra, 121 S.W.2d 727 . … See Hiltner v. Kansas City, supra, 293 S.W.2d 422, 425 (3). We think the criticism is best answered in Brown v.

Morris v. Kansas City

391 S.W.2d 198 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 14, 1965

In Horne v. … Power v. Benson Banking Co., Mo.App., 99 S.W.2d 109 , 110; Owings v. White, Mo., 51,370, 391 S.W.2d 195 .

Montgomery v. Clarkson

585 S.W.2d 483 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1979

Brown, Brown & Casey, Brookfield, for plaintiff-appellant. Harry L. Porter, Marceline, for defendant-respondent. Jack D. Lukehart, Brunswick, Robert G. Smith, Brookfield, for defendants. DONNELLY, Judge. … I do not believe that McVey v.