Case law

State v. Sandoe

316 Mo. 55 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1926

Brown, 285 S.W. 995 ; State v. Bauer, 285 S.W. 82 .] II. The first two grounds in the motion for a new trial may be considered together. … [State v. Wright, 280 S.W. 703 ; State v. Brown, 285 S.W. 995 -6.] IV.

Schmoll v. Housing Authority of St. Louis County

321 S.W.2d 494 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 9, 1959

Louis Housing Authority v. St. Louis, supra. Furthermore, the school districts, the county zoning board and the Metropolitan St. … Town of Olivette v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra; Board of Public Works v. Sho-Me Power Corp., 362 Mo. 730 , 244 S.W.2d 55 ; Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp. v. Kennett, 348 Mo. 1108 , 156 S.W.2d 913 .

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

310 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 30, 1925

In Hunt v. … In Hunt v.

Cutler v. Cook

77 Mo. 388 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1883

Brown, 10 Mo. 396 , that the statute applied to negotiable paper provided it was fraudulently assigned to avoid any legal set-off. This decision was followed by Judge Ryland in 1857 in Martindale v. Hudson, 25 Mo. 422 . … Wheeler v. Barret, 20 Mo. 573 ; Unseld v. Stephenson, 33 Mo. 161 ; Mattoon v. McDaniel, 34 Mo. 138 ; Arnot v. Woodburn, 35 Mo. 99 ; Haeussler v. Greene, 8 Mo. App. 451 ; Grier v. Hinman, 9 Mo. App. 213 .

Reorganization of Levee District No. 3 of Mississippi County v. Seeking Reorganization of Levee District No. 3 of Mississippi County

695 S.W.2d 450 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 7, 1985

Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). … Two of the three board members opposed the reorganization. These two members, also acting as the board, conducted an advertising campaign against the reorganization.

Willig v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

345 Mo. 705 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 21, 1940

[Hubbard v. Wabash Ry. … [Johnson v. Waverly Brick Coal Co., 276 Mo. 42 , 205 S.W. 615 ; McQuitty v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 196 Mo. App. 450 , 194 S.W. 888 ; Hudgens v. St. Louis S.F. Ry. Co., 139 Mo. App. 44 , 119 S.W. 522 ; Lincoln v. St.

State ex rel. Gavin v. Gill

688 S.W.2d 370 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 2, 1985

In Anderson v. … See Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 , 102 S.Ct. 2836 , 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974); San Antonio School Dist. v.

State Ex Rel. Wors v. Hostetter

343 Mo. 945 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 7, 1939

Saunders v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 333 Mo. 691 , 697, 63 S.W.2d 67 , 69, to sustain his contention, and says respondents' opinion contravenes that decision. … But the opinion took notice of another case: Brown v. Corn Products Refining Co. (Mo.

Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. City of St. Louis

341 Mo. 689 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 30, 1937

Commissioner or Board of Public Service in the enforcement of this ordinance.” … Furthermore, in Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.

State v. Swain

239 Mo. 723 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 6, 1912

Defendant cites People v. Smith, 99 N. Y. Supp. 118 ; Banker v. People, 37 *730 Mich. 4 ; Wellar v. People, 30 Mich. 16 , hut those cases do not sustain his contention. VI. … Kennish and Brown, JJ., concur.

Finney v. Sullivan County

48 Mo. 350 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 15, 1871

They were not the agents of the county, nor was the county a party to the proceedings before the board. (See Kelley v. Andrew County, 48 Mo. 338 .) … (Hawley v. Commissioners of Vigo County, 2 Blackf. 355 ; Commissioners of Miami County v. Blake, 21 Ind. 32 ; State v. Daily, 45 Mo. 156 .) The county of Sullivan is therefore not liable-for the plaintiff’s claim.

State ex rel. Miller v. Shryack

179 Mo. 424 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 10, 1904

of directors of said corporation, of which said board said defendant, M. … [People v. Comrs., 4 Wall. 244 ; Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134 .]

Glueck Realty Company v. City of St. Louis

318 S.W.2d 206 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 10, 1958

Plaintiff cited the case of City of Kirkwood v. … Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Terte, 345 Mo. 95 , 131 S.W.2d 587 , 124 A.L.R. 1331 ; Joplin Consolidated Mining Co. v. City of Joplin, 124 Mo. 129 , 27 S.W. 406 ; Cavanaugh v.

Tallman Company v. Latal

365 Mo. 552 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1955

Ct., had the following to say: “In Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315 U. S. 740 , 62 S. Ct. 820 , 86 L. … The Court held that such conduct [553] was not subject to regulation by the federal board, either by prohibition or by protection. ’ ’ • In the case of United Construction Workers v. Laburnum, supra, the U. S.

In Re Estate of Hoffman

490 S.W.2d 98 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 12, 1973

Both Oliver and Dolores deposited a brown envelope in the box and the box was locked without the money being counted. … See Albright v. Davis, Mo.App., 64 S.W.2d 121 , 124.

State ex rel. American Manufacturing Co. v. Reynolds

270 Mo. 589 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 28, 1917

Brown, J., in that case assumed as true, without discussing the question of duress. … We can well say, as in American Manufacturing Co. v. City of St.

Wood v. Nortman

85 Mo. 298 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1884

See Jones v. Manly, 58 Mo. 559 . … Templeton et al. v. Wolf, 19 Mo. 101 ; Lawrence v. Shreve, 26 Mo. 492 .

Steines v. Steines

338 Mo. 335 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 11, 1936

She cites Reed v. Cooke, 331 Mo. 507 , 55 S. W. (2d) 275 . … She told him to leave and board with his cousin Emma. He told her tha,t he did not have the money to pay board. He had his old furniture moved from the home to his old home on Fifth Street.

Blaisdell v. Steamboat William Pope

19 Mo. 157 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1853

Louis, by going on board the steamboat *158 Wm. … Irvine v. Scobee, 5 Litt. Rep. 70 . Muldrow v. Bates, 5 Mo. Rep. 214 . 3.

State v. Tatman

312 Mo. 134 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1925

In Equitable Life Insurance Society v. Brown, 187 U.S. 311 , it was ruled: "But it is settled that not every mere allegation of a Federal question will suffice to give jurisdiction. … In State v.