Case law

State Ex Rel. First National Bank v. Hughes

346 Mo. 938 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 31, 1940

A board had been placed on each step, plaintiff saw the boards, observed their width and thickness and the manner in which they were placed on the steps. … In descending the steps plaintiff caught her heel on the back of a board, moved the board out of place, and she fell and was injured.

Scheer v. Brooks

333 Mo. 1201 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 19, 1933

W. 798, 806 ; McMillan v. Richards, 70 Am. Dec. 655 , 675; Blunt v. Walker, 78 Am. Dec. 709 , 714, 718; Rayburn v. Day, 27 Ill. 46 ; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 Mich. 29 ; Chamberlain Banking House v. Woolsey, 60 Neb. 516 .] … [Holland v. Rongey, 168 Mo. 16 , 67 S. W. 568 ; McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Mo. 263 ; Bertiaux v. Dillon, 20 Mo. App. 603 ; Schepflin v. Dessar, 20 Mo. App. 569 ; Bank v. Peterman, 21 Mo. App. 512 ; O’Bryan v. Jones, 38 Mo.

Magwire v. Tyler

30 Mo. 202 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1860

I consider the case as decided by the case of Cochran v. … It has been suggested that the survey of Brown of two tracts in one may be treated as the authoritative government survey; and if so, that there is nothing in the principle deter *209 mined in Cochran v.

City of St. Louis v. Carpenter

341 S.W.2d 786 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 9, 1961

Louis, a municipal corporation, or to employees of the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. … Louis v.

Clark v. St. Louis Transfer Railway Co.

127 Mo. 255 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 5, 1895

Sweet v. Owens, 109 Mo. 1 , and authorities cited. Bartlett v. Brown, 121 Mo. 353 , and authorities cited. … Andrews v. Andrews, 81 Maine, 337; Bartlett v. Brown, supra.

Inter-City Fire Protection District v. Gambrel

360 Mo. 924 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1950

Sec. 13,927.81) and said board on February 19, 1949 duly notified the county court of Jackson county of said rate of levy so fixed by the board and directed the court to levy such tax on-behalf of the plaintiff district as … Pollock v. Becker, 289 Mo. 660 , 233 S. W. 641, 645 ; State ex rel. Westhues v. Sullivan, supra; State ex rel. Asotsky v. Regan, 317 Mo. 1216 , 298 S. W. 747, 748 .

State ex rel. Pacific Railroad v. Dulle

48 Mo. 282 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 15, 1871

(State v. Moore, 19 Mo. 369 .) In the case of The State, to use, etc., v. … In Melburn v.

Lortz v. Rose

346 Mo. 1212 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1940

Louis Court of Appeals held that such a tender was not good in the case of Rowe v. Bank of Centralia, 221 Mo. App. 262 , 2 S. W. (2d) 191 . … [Oviatt v. Brown, 14 Ohio, 285.] The purpose of a suit to quiet title is to determine the existing title. Any and all rights of any litigant in the land in controversy may be determined in one suit. [White v.

Ex parte Collins

94 Mo. 22 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1887

Gratz Brown, commuted his punishment to imprisonment in the penitentiary for and during the term of his natural life. … The constitution of this state authorizes the Governor, after conviction, which means after return of a verdict of guilty (Commonwealth v.

Carden v. Thompson

333 Mo. 218 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 14, 1933

He received and retained $700,000 found by that board to be the reasonable value of the vessel. … [McClanahan v. West, 100 Mo. 309 , l.c. 322, 13 S.W. 674 ; Stoutzenberger v. Lamb (Mo. App.), 190 S.W. 963 .]

Skinner v. Davis

312 Mo. 581 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 23, 1926

In Bryson v. … [Reynolds v. Union Station Bank, 198 Mo. 332 , 200 S.W. 711 ; Zimmerman v. Harding, 227 U.S. 489 ; Sweet v. Bank, 69 Kan. 643 .]

Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Express

819 S.W.2d 338 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 19, 1991

Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Southworth, 704 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Mo. banc 1986). Where no ambiguity exists, there is no need to resort to rules of construction. … Faris v. Eversole, 332 S.W.2d 879 (Mo. banc 1960); State ex rel. Prescott Laundry Co. v. Mo. Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 320 Mo. 1156 , 10 S.W.2d 916 (banc 1928); Boatner v.

State v. Overby

432 S.W.2d 277 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 14, 1968

State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681 , 162 S.W.2d 878, 886 [12]; State v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d, 903, 906 [2]. … State v. Deckard, Mo.Sup., 354 S.W.2d 886, 887 [1]; State v. Caffey, Mo.Sup., 365 S.W.2d 607, 609 [1].)

State ex rel. Ward v. Atchison

173 Mo. 164 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 18, 1903

On September 29, 1899, John Ward, late of .said county, deceased, gave a list of his taxable property to Phillip V. … Ferguson v. Moss, 69 Mo. 495 , in which it was held to be constitutional, and State v.

Reese v. Chilton

26 Mo. 598 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1858

The plaintiff sued the defendant for boarding his wife and for necessaries furnished to her during a temporary separation from her husband. … (Williams v. Pierce, 3 Strob. 490 .)

State ex rel. Garrett v. Saitz

594 S.W.2d 606 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 11, 1980

Carter v. Jury Commission, 396 U.S. 320, 332 , 90 S.Ct. 518, 524 , 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 474 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 416 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). The United . … Nowhere in the legislative history of the federal act, in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the act [Test v.

Zahner v. City of Perryville

813 S.W.2d 855 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 23, 1991

Comm’n v. … Comm’n v.

Orr v. Wilmarth

95 Mo. 212 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1888

Thomas v. Black, 22 Mo. 331 ; Scroggs v. Daugherty, 53 Mo. 497 ; Fike v. Clark, 55 Mo. 105 . The defendant’s third instruction, therefore, should have been given. … A different construction was given to it in Whittlesey v. Robert, 51 Mo. 120 ; but in the recent case of Zoll v.

Vanderbeck v. Watkins

421 S.W.2d 274 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 13, 1967

Bram (Mo.Sup.) 277 S.W.2d 556 , and North v. … McCubbin v. Ginn (Mo.Sup. banc) 347 S.W.2d 119 , l. c. 125. Nebraska Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. v.

Luhr Bros., Inc. v. Director of Revenue

780 S.W.2d 55 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1989

The taxpayer provided certain management services to the subsidiary’s board of directors. The taxpayer’s directors on the subsidiary’s board had veto power, but ASARCO was unable to control the actions of the board. … Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 , 103 S.Ct. 2933 , 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983).