Case law

Klasing v. Fred Schmitt Contracting Co.

335 Mo. 721 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 17, 1934

[Kemper v. … [Kemper v. Gluck, supra.]

State v. Pratt

98 Mo. 482 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1889

.; Brown v. State, 18 Ohio St. 496 ; Gravatt v. State, 25 Ohio St. 162 ; Campbell v. State, 35 Ohio St. 70 . … Commonwealth v. Tenney, 97 Mass. 50 ; Commonwealth v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 173 ; State v. Leicham, 41 Wis. 565 .

Phillips v. Phillips

443 S.W.2d 144 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 9, 1969

Lupkey v. … Andres v. Brown, Mo., 300 S.W.2d 800, 801 [1], This rule is applicable to court-tried as well as jury-tried cases. Long v. Stilwell Homes, Inc., Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 103, 106 [9].

State v. Clay

975 S.W.2d 121 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 22, 1998

State v. Brown, 949 S.W.2d 639, 642 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Appellant himself testified that “When the ear come to a stop, I bailed out, was running.” Appellant was not prejudiced by this evidence. … Brown, 902 S.W.2d at 295 .

De Pass v. B. Harris Wool Co.

346 Mo. 1038 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 9, 1940

Rosenfield, 42 Mo. 474 ; The Kensington, 183 U.S. 263 ; Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412 ; Grosman v. Union Trust Co., 228 F. 610 ; Continental Supply Co. v. Trust *Page 1042 Co., 202 N.W. 404 ; Campen Bros. v. … Stewart, 145 S.E. 381 ; Pope v. Hanke, 40 N.E. 839 ; Fox v. Telegraph Co., 120 N.W. 399 .

Bidwell v. St. Louis Floating Dock & Insurance

40 Mo. 42 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1867

Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260 ; Brown v. Roger Wms. Ins. Co., 5 R. I. 394; but the assignee in such case can have no greater or superior rights than the assured. In the case of Wallingford v. Home Mut. &c. Ins. … Y., supra; Carpenter v. Providence Ins. Co., 16 Pet. 495 ; Foster v. Equitable Fire Ins. Co., 2 Gray, 216 . *48 The court committed no error in allowing Scott to testify.

State v. Coleman

69 L.R.A. 381 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 2, 1905

[State v. Adams, 76 Mo. l. c. 357; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. l. c. 137; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. l. c. 650; State v. Glahn, 97 Mo. l. c. 689.] … [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 ; State v. Stacy, 103 Mo. 11 ; State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 .]

Dalton v. Willis

360 Mo. 329 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 13, 1950

Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. John F. Weber & Bro. Grocery Co., 347 Mo. 739 , 148 S. W. 2d 578 . … Welsh v. Brown, 339 Mo. 235 , 96 S. W. 2d 345 . Permissive possession is not adverse possession. Since appellants’ possession was permissive, *334 they cannot get title to this land by adverse possession. Eaton v.

Bellerive Country Club v. McVey

365 Mo. 477 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1955

Katz Drug Co. v. Kavner, Mo., 249 S. W. 2d 166, 170 [7-9]. … Mitchell v. Pla-Mor, Inc., 361 Mo. 946 , 237 S.W. 2d 189 .

Herweck v. Rhodes

327 Mo. 29 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 5, 1931

[Curtis v. Sexton, 201 Mo. l.c. 230; Home Insurance Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 219 Mo. App. 645 ; Ball v. Cotton Press Co., 141 Mo. App. 26 ; Quint v. Kingsbury et al. (Mo. App.), 289 S.W. 667 .] … [State ex rel. v. Brown, 208 Mo. 613 ; Curtis v. Sexton, supra; Lorberg v. Jaynes, supra.]

Miltenberger v. Morrison

46 Mo. 251 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1870

The pleadings in this case differs from the pleadings in Miltenberger v. … Brown, and her attorney, Mr. Hitchcock. Brown did but little more than employ Hitchcock, whose mind thenceforward-became-the directing agency in the transaction in question.

State ex rel. Hamilton v. Guinotte

50 L.R.A. 787 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 4, 1900

[Benoist v. Murrin, supra; Harris v. Hays, 58 Mo. 90 ; 1 Woerner Am. L. Admin. (2 Ed.), star p. 500; Brown on Jurisdiction, sec. 64; McMahon v. McMahon, 100 Mo. 97 .] … [Brown v. Ryder, 42 N. J. Eq. 356.] There was no hint or intimation in the case .just cited, that any supersedeas bond had been given, or that any was necessary. See, also, 2 Woerner, Am. L. Admin., 1203.

Ex parte Zorn

241 Mo. 267 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 21, 1912

BROWN, J. — Habeas corpus instituted in this court on February 23,1912, to secure the release of petitioner from Dr. C. R. Woodson’s sanitarium in St. … [State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 129 Mo. App. 263 .]

State v. Smith

522 S.W.3d 221 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 11, 2017

Evans v. Brown Builders Elec. Co., 254 S.W.3d 31, 35 (Mo. banc 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). … Evans v. Brown Builders Elec. Co., Inc., 254 S.W.3d 31, 35 (Mo. banc 2008). We must construe provisions of the entire legislative act together and, to the extent reasonably possible, harmonize all provisions. Geary v.

National Tube Works Co. v. Ring Refrigerating & Ice Machine Co.

118 Mo. 365 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 4, 1893

Campbell organized defendant corporation with a capital of $100,000 and themselves constituted the first board of directors. … Dougherty v. Cooper 77 Mo. 529 , and cases cited; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 379 ; Craig v. Zimmerman, 87 Mo. 478 .

Baker v. City of St. Louis

189 Mo. 375 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 15, 1905

Chapman, members of the Board of Health of said city, defendants. The petition is in five counts. … Co. v. Marr, 168 Mo. 252 ; Seay v. Sanders, 88 Mo. App. 478 .] For this reason the motion of respondents to dismiss the appeal will be sustained and the appeal dismissed. All concur.

State ex rel. Dowell v. Renshaw

166 Mo. 682 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 19, 1902

As against this is the fact that he was actually in Mexico, boarding at the Ringo Hotel, from March 31st to May 22nd and from November 15th to December 31st, 1894, and also his own declaration to the assessor in 1894 that … [Gustin v. Ins. Co., 164 Mo. l. c. 177.] IV. The next contention is that the court erred in admitting in evidence a taxbill made out by the collector from the tax-book.

Evans v. Massman Construction Co.

343 Mo. 632 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1938

That said mat was lattice-like in nature and consisted of boards woven together in such form as to leave openings of only four inches between the boards and that this was set from the bottom of the river up to a point two … In our judgment the jury have made unwarrantable deductions from the evidence, and, moved by our sense of justice, we must set aside the verdict.’'’ *651 The District Court of Nebraska, in Brown et al., v. C., B. & Q.

Stottle v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

321 Mo. 1190 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 2, 1929

Co. v. Brown, 229 U. … And, further, ‘The mere fact that the pin would not lift when plaintiff [Brown] endeavored to lift it makes a case of negligence under the first count.’ ” In Foster v. Davis, 252 S.

State ex rel. Heaven v. Hawes

177 Mo. 402 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 3, 1903

If he ever had, he fully served it out, and when he was retired he was holding simply at the pleasure of the board. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.]