Case law

State Ex Rel. Board of Fund Commissioners v. Smith

339 Mo. 214 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 13, 1936

Board of Fund Commissioners v. Smith (No. 34,789), 339 Mo. 204 , 96 S. W. (2d) 348 . That case involved the. authority of the.Board of Fund Commissioners to refund “State Building Bonds.” … Board of Fund Commissioners v. Smith (No. 34,789), 339 Mo. 204 , 96 S. W. (2d) 348 , the alternative writ heretofore issued herein is quashed. All concur.

Board of Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church, South v. May

201 Mo. 360 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 22, 1907

Justice Bradley in Patch v. White, 117 U. S. 210 . In our judgment the doctrine of these cases is sufficient to upohld this description under the oral evidence. II. … W. l. c. 620; Crimes’ Exrs. v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198 ; Coleman v. O’Leary’s Exr. (Ky.), 70 S. W. 1068 ; Nolte v. Meyer, 79 Tex. 351 , 15 S. W. 276 ; Pack v. Shanklin, 43 W. Va. 304 , 27 S. E. 389 ; McHugh v.

Heath v. Goslin

80 Mo. 310 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1883

Lapsley v. McKinstry, 38 Mo. 245 , and authorities therein cited. In Horseley v. … So in Cullen v.

United Pharmacal Co. of Missouri v. Missouri Board of Pharmacy

159 S.W.3d 361 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 5, 2005

In St Louis Christian Home v. … Inc. v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 850 S.W.2d 71, 74-75 (Mo. banc 1993).

Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City

240 Mo. 659 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 1, 1912

Co., 118 Mo. l. c. 218-219; State ex rel. v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. l. c. 206.] … [Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Saxey, 131 Mo. 212 ; St. Louis v. Canty, 207 Mo. l. c. 459-460.]

Weakley v. State Highway Commission

364 S.W.2d 608 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 14, 1963

To show the Browns intended the 1945 plat of approximately 75 acres as an addition to Florissant, appellants rely solely upon the fact that their 1946 plat of 6.671 acres was submitted to and approved by the board of aldermen … And in Hill v.

Board of Managers of Parkway Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Carcopa

403 S.W.3d 590 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 16, 2013

The Board of Managers of Parkway Towers is the executive board designated to act on behalf of Parkway Towers. Trish Carcopa purchased a unit in Parkway Towers in January 2004. … Ocello v. Koster, 354 S.W.3d 187, 197 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Westin Crown Plaza Hotel Co. v. King, 664 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo. banc 1984)).

Sheldon v. Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System

779 S.W.2d 553 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1989

with workers' compensation payments for nursing care, paid by the Board of Police Commissioners pursuant to a negotiated settlement agreement. … The Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System (hereinafter the “Pension System”) determined that Steven was totally disabled.

Ellis v. Clippard

305 Mo. 234 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 27, 1924

Brown Clippard to Cora A. … Clippard, a brother of Brown, was the record *239 owner of a tract of 166.65 acres which adjoined the home place of Brown and Cora.

City of St. Louis v. St. Louis-Blast Furnace Co.

235 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 1, 1911

Trotter v. St. Louis Public Schools, 9 Mo. 70 ; Kissell v. St. … [Kissell v. St. Louis Public Schools, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 19 .] That was an action in ejectment wherein the St. Louis School Board was plaintiff.

State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. Missouri State Board of Mediation

509 S.W.2d 84 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 8, 1974

Emp. v. … See also Peters et al. v. Board of Education of Reorganized School District No. 5 of St. Charles County Missouri, 506 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.1974) — (handed down February 11, 1974).

McEuen Ex Rel. McEuen v. Missouri State Board of Education

120 S.W.3d 207 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 25, 2003

For instance, in Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc. v. … Similarly, in Stroh Brewery Co. v.

State Ex Rel. St. Louis County v. Stussie

556 S.W.2d 186 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 11, 1977

, subject to the rules and provision of the State Board of Probation and Parole. … Brown’s case in State v. Brown. It can in no way be said to be an appeal from the order of probation. Respondent also contests relators’ standing to bring this proceeding.

State Ex Rel. Beggs v. Dormire

91 S.W.3d 605 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 24, 2002

V, sec. 4; Rule 91. Petitioner claims that although his original imprisonment was lawful, he is entitled by statute to be placed on probation. Peremptory writ of mandamus issued. … Haley v. Groose, 873 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo. banc 1994). In order to effectuate the writ, the Honorable J. Michael Brown is added as a respondent. See State ex rel. Malone v.

State v. Boyd

492 S.W.2d 787 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 12, 1973

Insofar as the information he gave Engelking about Boyd was concerned, Engelking made no effort to corroborate it, other than by verifying through Officer ,Brown that Boyd did board a TWA plane for Phoenix. … In McCray v.

Armantrout v. Bohon

349 Mo. 667 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 17, 1942

Phillips v. Barton, 300 Mo. 76 , 254 S.W. 85 ; Gantt v. Brown, 238 Mo. 560 , 142 S.W. 422 ; Bradley v. Page (Mo. App.), 46 S.W.2d 208 ; Breuninger v. … Brown v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582 , 22 S.W. 888 ; Lebanon Light Magnetic Water Co. v. City of Lebanon, 163 Mo. 246 , 63 S.W. 809 .]

Gregory v. Kansas City

244 Mo. 523 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 2, 1912

BROWN, J. … The doctrine announced in the two eases last cited, is sustained by the following additional authorities : Butler v. Pennsylvania, 51 U. S. 402 ; People v. Brown, 83 Ill. 95 , l. c. 97; Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.

United Pharmacal Co. of Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Board of Pharmacy

208 S.W.3d 907 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 19, 2006

United Pharmacal Company of Missouri, Inc. v. Missouri Board of Pharmacy, 159 S.W.3d 361, 363 (Mo. banc 2005). … The board has not articulated why it has changed its statutory interpretation. The board does not have the power to broaden the scope of its statutory authority. Soars v.

Forbes v. Dunnavant

198 Mo. 193 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1906

Parke, Davis & Co., 76 Mich. 631 ; Beesley v. Wheeler & Co., 103 Mich. 196 ; Cregan v. Marston, 126 N. Y. 568 ; Callahan v. Trustees, 180 Mass. 183 ; Miller v. Railroad, 175 Mass. 363 ; Colton v. … [Knorpp v. Wagner, 195 Mo. 637 ; Livengood v. Lead & Zinc Co., 179 Mo. 229 ; Fisher v. Central Lead Co., 156 Mo. 479 .] III.

State ex rel. Township Board of Education v. Heath

56 Mo. 231 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1874

by the Webster Groves school district on the 28th day of November, 1868, with the exception of certain territory set off to the Fairview school district, by agreement between the Webster -Groves school board and the board … of education of township 45, 6 east, and no authority given by the said township board for the extension of the limits of said Webster Groves school district.”