Case law

State ex rel. Brown v. Union Trust Co.

92 Mo. 157 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1887

It appears from the record before us that the property owned by defendant company on the first day of August, 1875, was equalized and assessed by the state-board of equalization in 1876, and that the total valuation thereof … Pettis Co. v.

H. B. Deal & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.

349 Mo. 275 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 26, 1942

Co. v. Gymnastic Assn., 332 Mo. 440, 58 , S. W. (2d) 995; Martin-Welch Hdw., etc., Co. v. Spencer (Mo. App.), 214 S. W. 417 ; Baker v. Smallwood, 161 Mo. App. 257 , 143 S. W. 518 ; Planing Mill, etc., Co. v. … [Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 334 Mo. 517 , l. c. 527, 66 S. W. (2d) 903 .] There the assets of defendant were being administered by a receiver appointed by a federal court.

McDermott v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

61 S.W.3d 246 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 18, 2001

The trial court sustained the board of probation and parole’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against McDermott. … State v. Bolin, 643 S.W.2d 806, 811 (Mo. banc 1983).

St. Louis Board of Education v. Shannon

640 S.W.2d 121 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 12, 1982

The Board of Education informed him his injury was not job related and therefore not compensable under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law. Mr. … Diemer v. Weiss, 343 Mo. 626, 627 , 122 S.W.2d 922, 923 (1938). A statute is presumed constitutional unless it clearly contravenes some constitutional provision. Prokopf v. Whaley, 592 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Mo. banc 1980).

Gurley v. Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners

361 S.W.3d 406 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 6, 2012

V, sec. 3. 7 III. … See United States v.

Lagud v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners

136 S.W.3d 786 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 22, 2004

He and the Board both state that, in applying this provision, this Court is to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Board’s decision. But, in Hampton v. … See Rogers v.

Wilson v. Turner

4 Mo. 274 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1836

Wilson, to Turner and Brown Dr. … The counsel for the petitioners contends that this is a note, and cites Hubbard v. Beckwith, p. 492 1st vol. of Bibb’s reports.

State ex rel. Tedford v. Knott

207 Mo. 167 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 27, 1907

[State ex rel. v. May, 106 Mo. 488 .] … [State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 1191 Mo. l. c. 394 and 395; Wickham v. Page, 49 Mo. 526 ; Brown v. *176 Weatherly, 71 Mo. 152 .]

Roy F. Stamm Electric Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.

350 Mo. 1178 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 5, 1943

Kansas City v. Jones Store Co., 325 Mo. 226 , 28 S. W. (2d) 1008 ; McDermott v. Claas, 104 Mo. 14 , 15 S. W. 995 . … Deal & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 349 Mo. 275 , 160 S. W. (2d) 719 , we held that the court should enter a general judgment against the bankrupt’s estate. Respondent cites Holland v. Cunliff, 96 Mo. App. 67 .

Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole

97 S.W.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 14, 2003

disinformation;” (5) the new regulations granting parole review every five years, instead of every two years under the old regulations, are unconstitutional; (6) other prisoners have received more favorable consideration by the board … Const, article V, section 3. The circuit court treated the claims as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied relief. There is no appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. E.W. v.

St. Joseph Board of Public Schools v. Patten

62 Mo. 444 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1876

Joseph Board of Public Schools is a corporation created by acts of the legislature of March 3d, 1866, and March 20th, 1872, and by those acts authorized to estimate the amount of money requisite for the purpose of building

State ex rel. Lemon v. Board of Equalization

108 Mo. 235 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

Brown v. Weatherby, 71 Mo. 152 ; Wickham, Adm’r, v. Page, 49 Mo. 526 ; Laughlin v. Fairbanks, 8 Mo. 370 . … State ex rel. v. Gaylord, 73 Wis. 306 . See, also, Brown v. Weatherby, supra.

In Re Hughes v. State Board of Health

348 Mo. 1236 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 26, 1942

Lentine v. State Board of Health, 334 Mo. 220 , 65 S. W. (2d) 943 . The argument that the ground of revocation must be expressly specified by statute is based on our decision in State ex rel. Spriggs v. … See Dilliard v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 69 Colo. 575 , 196 Pac. 866 . Some of the states by statutes have declared such conduct to be unprofessional.

State Ex Rel. Thompson v. Board of Regents

305 Mo. 57 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 31, 1924

The'fund arising from such collections has been retained by the board and expended by it for the college. [State ex rel. v. Walker, 240 Mo. 1 . c. 724.] … [State ex rel. v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 412 ; Folk v. St. Louis, 250 Mo. 141 .]

State ex rel. Board of Education v. Nast

209 Mo. 708 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 27, 1908

It may and it has created boards with quasi-judicial functions, but those functions are not really judicial; they partake more of the character of ministerial offices.” In State ex rel. v. … [State v. Williams, 77 Mo. l. c. 313; State v. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335 ; State ex rel. v. Warner, 197 Mo. 650 .]

State ex rel. Nesbitt v. Board of Education

53 Mo. 127 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 15, 1873

State ex rel. Board of Education v. Tiedemann

69 Mo. 306 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1879

In addition to the foregoing observations, it has been expressly decided by this court, that a school house and lot, title whereof is vested in a board of education, is not the subject of a mechanics’ lien. … Holland v. Mayor, 11 Md. 186 ; Mayor v. Porter, 18 Md. 284 ; Vogler v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577 ; Damschroeder v. Thias, 51 Mo. 100 ; McPike v. Pen, 51 Mo. 63 .

Board of Education v. City of St. Louis

267 Mo. 356 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 30, 1916

BROWN, C. This suit was instituted April 11, 1912, against the defendant city and Stephen IT. … We have carefully examined the authorities cited by the appellant and find but one, Pasadena School District v.

Brown v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.

83 Mo. 478 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1884

Rosedale-Skinker Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Adjustment

425 S.W.2d 929 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 11, 1968

In Brown v. Beuc the landowner had a special permit to use a lot in a residential district for parking automobiles. … Zoning § 286, p. 1057; 58 Am.Jur., Zoning § 200, p. 1049; Brown v. Beuc, Mo.App., 384 S.W.2d 845, 851 [4]; Berard v. Board of Adjustment of City of St. Louis, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 731 , 733[1].