Case law

Labaddie Bottoms River Protection District v. Randall

348 Mo. 867 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 23, 1941

McBride v. Sheetz, 279 Mo. 429 , 437, 214 S.W. 376 ; State ex rel. Coleman v. Blair, 245 Mo. 680 , 686, 151 S.W. 148 .] … [Labaddie Bottoms River Protection District v. Randall (Mo. App.), 68 S.W.2d 871 ; State ex rel. Lehner v. Fullerton, 143 Mo. 682 , 686, 44 S.W. 741 ; State ex rel. Hammer v.

State ex rel. Parker v. Thompson

41 Mo. 25 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1867

Wisner, 8 Wend. 661 ; Hastings v. … Lane, 3 Shep. 134; Brown v. Wilcox, 14 S. & M. 127 ; Quackenbush v. Dank, 1 Denio, 128 .

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. Baker

20 Mo. 338 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 15, 1855

This ease may be under some peculiar manner or mode in Maine, under their constitution; yet the judges appear to rely very much on a remark of Judge Sewell, of Massachusetts, in the Commonwealth v. … (See Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. Rep. 488.)

Grainger v. Still

187 Mo. 197 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1905

A. 343; Bowman v. Woods, 1 Greene (Iowa) 441; Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 594 , 81 Am. Dec. 593 ; Hesse v. Knippel, 1 Mich. N. P. 109; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , 77 N. W. 813 ; Corsi v. Maretzek, 4 E. D. Smith (N. … Martin v.

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.

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 .]

Federal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Carpenter

371 S.W.2d 955 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 11, 1963

The medical expense statute provides that all fees and charges shall be reasonable and subject to regulation “by the commission, or the board of rehabilitation in rehabilitation cases” and “(t)he commission, or the board … Christy v. Petrus, 365 Mo. 1187, 1194 , 295 S.W.2d 122, 127-128 .

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.

Higgins v. Heine Boiler Co.

328 Mo. 493 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 28, 1931

[American Car Foundry Co. v. Industrial Comm., 335 Ill. 322 , 327; Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 262 , 266; Dochoff v. Construction Co., 212 Mich. 166 , 172; United States Casualty Co. v. … *Page 509 [Brown v. Weston-Mott Co., 202 Mich. 592 , 594; Baase v. Coal Co., 202 Mich. 57 , 60; Rubin v. Fisher Body Corp., 205 Mich. 605 , 608; Fidelity Casualty Co. v.

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.

State v. All Star News Agency, Inc.

580 S.W.2d 245 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 10, 1979

The cases pertinent to this appeal are Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 , 77 S.Ct. 1325 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957); Marcus v. … Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1708 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1127 (1961); A Quantity of Books, et al. v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 , 84 S.Ct. 1723 , 12 L.Ed.2d 809 (1964); Heller 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.

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.

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.