Case law

Wheeler v. Bowles

163 Mo. 398 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 11, 1901

App. 581 , to conform to the opinion of this Court in Banc, in Browning v. Railroad, 124 Mo. 55 . … [Fearey v. O’Neill, 149 Mo. loc. cit. 477; Harmon v. Dono *410 hoe, 153 Mo. loc. cit. 274-5.] But independent of the ruling in the Browning ease, the instruction in this case contained every element necessary.

State v. Livingston

801 S.W.2d 344 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 18, 1990

See State v. Williams, 611 S.W.2d 26, 30 (Mo. banc 1981); State v. Arthur, 57 S.W.2d 1061 (Mo.1933); State v. Mandina, 541 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Mo.App.1976). Particularly persuasive in this connection is State v. … See State v. Murray, 630 S.W.2d 577, 580 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Oliver, 720 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Mo.App.1986); State v. White, 651 S.W.2d 509 (Mo.App.1983).

Peck's Products Company v. Bannister

362 S.W.2d 596 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 11, 1962

Ulman v. Evans, (Mo.) 247 S.W.2d 693, 694 ; Drey v. State Tax Commission, (Mo.) 345 S.W.2d 228, 234 . … Louis Electric Bridge Co. v. Koeln, supra; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, supra; Bank of Carthage v. Thomas, 330 Mo. 19 , 48 S.W.2d 930 . For the reasons indicated the judgment is affirmed.

State ex rel. University Bank v. Blair

365 Mo. 699 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 9, 1956

The cause referred to was a writ for the judicial review of a decision of the board of bank appeals. An appeal was also taken to this court from the action of the court in quashing the writ. … Howe v. Hughes, 343 Mo. 827 , 123 S.W.2d 105 . The alternative writ issued herein' should be quashed, and the peremptory writ denied. It is so ordered. All concur.

Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co.

328 Mo. 782 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 5, 1931

[Brown Const. Co. v. MacArthur Bros. Co., 236 Mo. 41 , 48; Dierks Sons Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 296 S.W. 176 , 180.] … [State ex rel. v. Blakemore, 275 Mo. 695 ; Legg Shoe Co. v. Brown Leather Co., 249 S.W. 147 ; Connelly v. Illinois Central R. Co., 169 Mo. App. 272 ; In Matter of Fowler, 310 Mo. 339 .]

State v. Copeland

335 Mo. 140 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 17, 1934

It was built of composition board or wood, and was about nine feet high at the rear and was open in front. … [State v. Nasello, 325 Mo. 442 , 30 S. W. (2d) 132 ; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 , 12 S. W 516; State v. Brown, 119 Mo. 527 , 24 S. W. 1027 , 25 S. W. 200 ; State v. Foster, 136 Mo. 653 , 38 S. W. 721 ; State v.

State Ex Rel. City of St. Louis v. O'Malley

343 Mo. 658 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1938

Nor was any benefit district defined by the Board of Public Service or mentioned in the ordinance. … Louis v. Lang, 131 Mo. 412 , 33 S. W. 54 , City of St. Louis v. Wallrath et al., 293 Mo. 385 , 239 S. W. 110 , and City of Albany v. Gilbert, 144 Mo. 224 , 46 S. W. 157 . City of St. Louis v.

Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation

350 Mo. 431 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 10, 1942

In Jacobs v. Frank Adams Elec. Co. (Mo. App.), 97 S.W.2d 849 , plaintiff was injured while engaged in the installation of an electric panel board manufactured by the defendant and sold through a jobber. … The response was a loud explosion, and a flash from the board which extended out and temporarily blinded him, producing the injury to his eyes."

State Upon the Information of McKittrick v. Gate City Optical Co.

339 Mo. 427 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 2, 1936

Winslow v. Board of Dental Examiners, 115 Kan. 450 , 223 Pac. 308 , was a proceeding to enjoin the enforcement of an order of said board revoking plaintiff’s license to practice dentistry. … Beck v.

State v. Johnson

118 Mo. 491 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 7, 1893

Green, 1 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 11; State v. Simon, 50 Mo. 370 ; State v. McCanon, 51 Mo. 160 ; State v. Partlow, 90 Mo. 608 ; Brown v. State, 32 Miss. 433 ; Starkey v. … State v. Simon, and Wharton on Criminal Evidence, supra. V.

State v. Slaten

252 S.W.2d 330 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 13, 1952

Slaten says that he did not drink any of this whisky but left it in the barbershop for Brown and Turk. … In State v.

Chrisman v. Linderman

202 Mo. 605 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 28, 1907

To the same effect is McFadin v. Board, 188 Mo. 688 , and Quail v. Lomas, 200 Mo. 674 See, also, Casteel v. Potter, 176 Mo. 76 . … See Dumey v.

State v. Rose

92 Mo. 201 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1887

The action of the court in this respect is fully justified by the following cases: State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 50; State v. Starr, 38 Mo. 270 ; State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 40 ; State v. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 153 ; State v. … Christian, 66 Mo. 138, 145 ; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135, 138 ; State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 69 , 70; State v. Jones, 78 Mo. 278 ; State v. Thomas, 78 Mo. 327 ; State v. Brown, 64 Mo. 368 ; State v. Peak, 85 Mo. 190 .

Kirby v. Heaton

315 Mo. 338 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 30, 1926

We quote from a certified copy of the opinion in the case of Taylor v. … [Koerner v. Leathe, 149 Mo. 361 , 51 S. W. 96 .] In Mitchel v. Curran, 1 Mo.

State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Little River Drainage District

291 Mo. 72 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 19, 1921

[Land and Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240 ; Irrigation Co. v. Williams, 76 Cal. l.c. 367 Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461 , 473.] … Small, C., concurs; Brown, C., absent.

Glenn v. Hill

210 Mo. 291 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 17, 1908

App. 586 ; Blake v. Ranous, 25 Ill. App. 490 ; Clyne v. Helmes, 61 N. J. L. 358; Fowler Cycle Works v. Fraser, 110 Ill. App. 129 ; Dowling v. Nuebling, 97 Wis. 350 ; Libbey v. Tolford, 48 Maine 316 ; Whitehead v. … Thus, in Gill v.

Lampert v. Haydel

96 Mo. 439 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1888

J., dissented (basing his conclusion on the ground that the majority opinion was contrary to two decisions of this court in McDowell v. Brown, 21 Mo. 57 , and McIlvaine v. … The case of McDowell v. Brown, 21 Mo. 57, was one which involved the construction of a deed not a will. The granting clause was to “the grantee” and her heirs from henceforth and forever.

Rodgers v. Danforth

486 S.W.2d 258 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 3, 1972

State v. De Groat, 259 Mo. 364 , 168 S.W. 702 . We hold, under authority of United States v. … Brown, (N.D.Ohio W.D.) 321 F.Supp. 741, 749-750 , ably illustrates the vagueness found in our statute: ". . .

Harris v. Westin Management Co. East

230 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 7, 2007

Standard of Review As noted in James v. … Wells v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Mo. banc 2000); McClain v. Welsh Co., 748 S.W.2d 720, 724-25 (Mo.App.1988).

Wann v. Scullin

210 Mo. 429 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 17, 1908

In San Diego v. Railroad, 44 Cal. 106 , it appeared that the corporate authority of the city was vested in a board of three trustees, McCoy, Sherman and Estudillo. … In Kitchen v.