Case law

Grubb v. Leroy L. Wade & Son, Inc.

384 S.W.2d 528 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1964

No unfair labor practice within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board is involved. Neither side has raised any such question. … United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., supra.

Null v. Howell

111 Mo. 273 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 1, 1892

Beard v. Hale, 95 Mo. 16 ; Robinson v. Ware, 94 Mo. 678 ; Sherwood v. Baker, 105 Mo. 478 . … Sherwood v. Baker, supra, and authorities cited. It is well settled that the possession of the widow, under her quarantine right, is not adverse to the heirs of her deceased husband or their assigns. Brown v.

Buechner v. Bond

650 S.W.2d 611 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 31, 1983

Boone County Court v. State, 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). … Sayad v. Zych, 642 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. banc 1982). In Sayad, it was said in dissent: “Under today’s holding * * * the Board of Aldermen for the first time will assert its influence over the St.

Possien v. Higgins

421 S.W.2d 327 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1967

Moore v. Hoffman, supra; Westmeyer v. Gallen-kemp, supra; Swearengin v. Stafford, Mo., 188 S.W. 97 ; Sherwood v. Baker, 105 Mo. 472 , 16 S.W. 938 , 24 Am.St.Rep. 399 ; Null v. Howell, 111 Mo. 273 , 20 S.W. 24 ; Brown v. … Brown v. Moore, supra. In this case plaintiff entered into possession of the land by reason of her quarantine right as the widow of George Hofman.

Baugus v. Director of Revenue

878 S.W.2d 39 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 21, 1994

State Board of Registration for Healing Arts v. Southworth, 704 S.W.2d 219, 223 (Mo. banc 1986). … State Board of Registration for Healing Arts v. Southworth, 704 S.W.2d 219, 225 (Mo. banc 1986). No presumption will be indulged that the legislature intended to perform a futile act by enacting S.B. 35.

State ex rel. Sale v. McElhinney

199 Mo. 67 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 23, 1906

Folk v. … [Castello v. St. Louis Circuit Court, 28 Mo. 259 ; Wilson *79 v. Lucas, 43 Mo. 293 ; Higbee v.

Kellog v. Joint Council of Women's Auxiliaries Welfare Ass'n

265 S.W.2d 374 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 8, 1954

They pay about forty dollars per month for room ■ and board. Most of the guests receive1 financial assistance from the State. There ■ are two resident matrons. … See again Landau v. Levin, supra; and Taylor v. Schlemmer, supra.

Turner v. Central Hardware Co.

353 Mo. 1182 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 2, 1945

Thompson v. *Page 1191 Botts, supra; Steel v. Brown, 19 Mo. 312 ; Danforth Co. v. Crookshanks, 68 Mo. App. 311 ; Faust v. Koers, 111 Mo. App. 560 , 86 S.W. 278 ; 1 Williston, Sales, Sec. 203A. … Thompson v. Botts, 8 Mo., l.c. 712; Steel v. Brown, supra; Murphy v. Gay, supra; Davis v. Cramer, 188 Mo. App., l.c. 725, 176 S.W., l.c. 470.

Glauert v. Huning

266 S.W.2d 653 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 8, 1954

Sportsman v. … Place v.

State v. Hanson

234 Mo. 583 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 23, 1911

BROWN, J. — Defendant was fined $300 in the circuit court of Ray county for selling intoxicating liquor in the city of Richmond in said county, in violation of the Local Option Law; and appeals to this court; . … [Dowdy v. Wamble, 110 Mo. 280 ; Keene v. Wyatt, 160 Mo. l. c. 16.]

State v. Goforth

136 Mo. 111 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 20, 1896

State v. Paxton, 126 Mo. 500 ; State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100 ; State v. Jones, 134 Mo. 254 . … State v. Moore, 117 Mo. 395 ; State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406 .

State v. Anderson

252 Mo. 83 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 9, 1913

S. 1909; State v. Brown, 209 Mo. 1 . c. 418.] … [State v. Brown, 209 Mo. 413 .]

Kansas City Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City

174 Mo. 425 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 19, 1903

Later in 1863 the Missouri State Board of Agriculture was created a body corporate and it was made the duty of all agricultural and horticultural societies to mate reports to such State board. *435 The scheme of promoting … and they were required to make reports of their transactions to the State board.

Walker v. St. Louis Public Service Co.

362 Mo. 648 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 10, 1951

W. (2d) 1039, 1041 ; Wyble v. Lafleur (Ct. App. La. 1st Cir.) 164 So. 461 ; Fayette Co. Board of Education v. Tompkins (Ct. App. Ky.), 280 S. W. 114, 116 ; Birmingham Ry. Lt. & Power Co. v. McGinty (S. C. … W. (2d) 644 ; Plank v. R. J. Brown Petroleum Co., 332 Mo. 1150 , 61 S. W. (2d) 328 ; Cox v. M.-K.-T: R. Co., 335 Mo. 1226 , 76 S. W. (2d) 411 ; and State ex rel. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co. v.

Rothenberger v. Garrett

224 Mo. 191 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1909

Brown, and on April 8th Brown conveyed said half interest to William J. Brasfield, and on January 14, 1903, Brasfield deeded said one-half interest to Henry Kaiser, one of the plaintiffs. In April, 1870, L. D. … [Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 195 ; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. l. c. 415.] In Powell v.

St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lowder

138 Mo. 533 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 3, 1897

Miller v. Brown, 3 Mo. 128 ; Higdon v. Conway, 12 Mo. 295 ; Melcher v. Scruggs, 72 Mo. 406 . … Hunt v. Hunt, 12 N. Y. 217; State ex rel. *537 Scott v. Smith, 104 Mo. 419 ; State ex rel. Railroad v. Neville, 110 Mo. 345 ; Musick v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 309 .

First Baptist Church v. Robberson

71 Mo. 326 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1879

The same line of reasoning which would forbid the church from suing in its corporate name would also prevent the “ board of trustees ” from doing the like as such board, for the obvious reason that no such power is conferred … And in Clark v. Henry’s Admr., 9 Mo. 340 , Miller v.

State v. Boyd

498 S.W.2d 532 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 10, 1973

State v. Singleton, 77 S.W.2d 80 , 83 [2-4] (Mo.1934); State v. Spencer, 307 S.W.2d 440, 443 [1] (Mo. 1957); State v. Turnbo, 267 S.W. 847 , 849 [1, 2] (Mo.1924); State v. … State v. Croney, 425 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo.1968); State v. Kern, 447 S.W.2d 571, 577 [12] (Mo.1969).

Bender Ex Rel. Bender v. Bender

281 Mo. 473 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 13, 1920

[Viers v. Viers, 175 Mo. l.c. 453; Curd v. Brown, 148 Mo. l.c. 92.] And where the title in such case is taken in the name of both husband and wife an estate by the entirety occurs. [Moss v. Ardrey, 260 Mo. l.c. 604.] … It cannot be created by subsequent Coincident occurrences. 1 Perry on Trusts, sec. 133; Barrett v. With Deed . Foote, 187 S.W. 69 ; Stevenson v. Haynes, 220 Mo. 206 ; Kelly v. Johnson, 28 Mo. 249 ; Richardson v.

Bagley v. City of St. Louis

268 Mo. 259 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 2, 1916

Bagley’s place for the Hamilton Brown Shoe Company. They were driving Bagley’s team and were to get a load of empty shoe boxes and return with them to Bagley’s. … [Rhoads v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 227 Ill. 328 ; C. & A. R. R. Co., v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338 ; Burk v. Arcata & Mad River R. R. Co., 125 Cal. 364 ; Anderson v. C. B. & Q. Ry.