Case law

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 .

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.

State Ex Inf. Holt v. Meyer

321 Mo. 858 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 31, 1928

VI, Amendment 1884; Ramsey v. Huck, 267 Mo. 333 , l. c. 336, 184 S. W. 966 ; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 101 Mo. 501 , 14 S. W. 726 ; MaCrae v. Coles, 183 S. W. 578 ; State ex rel. v. … Such control is lodged exclusively with the board of commissioners. [See. 10809, R.

State ex inf. Attorney-General v. Hogan

163 Mo. 43 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 21, 1901

shares of the par value of one dollar each; that the same has been bona fide subscribed and all thereof actually paid up in lawful money of the United States, and is in the custody of the persons hereinafter named as the board … Atty., v. Berkeley, 140 Mo. 184 ; State ex inf. v. Vallins, 140 Mo. 523 ; Mechum’s Pub. Off., sec. 491; Tomlins Law Dic., tit. Quo.

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 .

Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

859 S.W.2d 681 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 17, 1993

Indian River Cty., 371 So.2d 1010, 1016 (Fla.1979); Schear v. Board of County Comm’rs of Bernalillo County, 101 N.M. 671, 673-74 , 687 P.2d 728, 730-31 (1984); Brennen v. … Wilson v. Ramacher, 352 N.W.2d 389, 394 (Minn.1984); Board of Transp. v. Terminal Warehouse Corp., 300 N.C. 700 , 268 S.E.2d 180, 183 (1980).

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.

Miles v. Robertson

258 Mo. 717 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 2, 1914

[Bunnell v. Bunnell, 111 Ky. 566 , and cases there cited; Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504 .] … [Ward v. Lewis, 4 Pick. 520 ; Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 238 ; Gilbert v. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 45 ; Clark v. Gifford, 10 Wend. 313 .]”

Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, Inc.

685 S.W.2d 837 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 26, 1985

Jenks v. Jenks, 385 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.App.1964). … To the same effect is Collins Radio Company v.

Stillwell v. Bell

248 Mo. 61 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 28, 1913

The case of Davis v. Luster, 64 Mo. 43 , is not in point. The deed there considered was executed under duress. ■ The judgment is affirmed. Brown, G., concurs.

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.

Hale v. Stimson

198 Mo. 134 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1906

In Whitney v. … In Lankford v.

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.

City of St. Louis v. Ӕters

36 Mo. 456 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1865

The power of the city to order the construction of a district sewer is not limited to cases of a petition by a majority of the names, or of a recommendation of the board of health, for sanitary purposes, but extends to all … Joseph v. Anthony, 30 Mo. 539 ; Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 493 ; Lockwood v. City, 24 Mo. 20 .) There were some other objections made by the defendant, which we do not think it necessary to notice in detail.

Thatcher v. St. Louis

335 Mo. 1130 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 15, 1934

[Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543 ; St. Louis v. Wenneker, 145 Mo. 230 , 47 S.W. 105 ; St. Louis v. Crow, Atty-Genl., 171 Mo. 272 , 71 S.W. 132 ; St. Louis v. McAllister, Atty. … [See American Colonization Society v.

Skinner v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

254 Mo. 228 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 3, 1914

BROWN, C. R. S. 1899, seo. 1110: Clearing Railroad Right of Way Penalty. … [Dorrance v. Dorrance, 242 Mo. 625 ; Holder v. Aultman, 169 U. S. 81 .]

Clark v. Carter

200 Mo. 515 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1906

[Presbyterian Church v. MeElhinney, 61 Mo. 540 .] … Our attention is also directed to the cases of Mersman v. Mersman, 136 Mo. 244 ; Bank of Commerce v. Chambers, 96 Mo. 459 ; Hamer v. Cook, 118 Mo. 476 .

Henry v. Halliburton

690 S.W.2d 775 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 29, 1985

See generally Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 231 , 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1797 , 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); Virginia Board v. … See Brown v. Kitterman, 443 S.W.2d 146, 153 (Mo.1969). Sometimes a plaintiff would have to plead and prove extrinsic facts to establish that the slanderous words were of and concerning the plaintiff. Cook 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.

White v. Boyle Trust & Investment Co.

358 Mo. 818 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 14, 1949

Johnson v. Ford, 147 Tenn. 63 , 245 S.W. 531 ; Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo. App. 508 , 142 S.W. 1082 ; 2 Restatement, Contracts, Sec. 492; Restatement Restitution, Sec. 78b(IV); 45 Mich. … Compare: Johnson v. Ford and Brown v. Worthington, supra. [2] Despite the fact that the option contact called for 2000 acres of land the appellant escrowed 2160 acres.