Case law

State v. Valle

164 Mo. 539 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 12, 1901

[Willi v. Lucas, 110 Mo. l. c. 222; Canifax v. Chapman, 7 Mo. 175 ; Page v. Freeman, 19 Mo. 421 ; Allred v. Bray, 41 Mo. 484 ; Murphy v. Wilson, 44 Mo. 313 ; Cooper v. Johnson, 81 Mo. 483 ; State v. … The defendant and his companion Brown boarded the car together, and when they alighted therefrom, defendant made use of the most indecent and insulting language to the conductor that he could command, and, while standing

Township Board of Education of Township 44, Range 12 v. Hackmann

48 Mo. 243 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 15, 1871

On this subject Poland, J., in Williams v. School District No. 6 ( 33 Verm. 271 ), makes the following observations: “Every public use is to some extent local, and benefits a particular section more than others. … (Pickering v. Mississippi Valley Telegraph Co., 47 Mo. 459 .) There is no motion in arrest to test its sufficiency in matter of substance.

New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Browne

177 Mo. 412 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 17, 1903

In the case of Snell v. … The record discloses that William H. and Johnk Browne spoke of the board of the latter being applied to the payment of rent; but the record is absolutely silent as to any contract or even a conversation relative to the further

Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Morse

356 Mo. 179 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 21, 1947

The case of Sevier v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202 , 104 S. … Industrial Trust Co. v. Hall et al., 66 R. I. 201, 18 Atl. (2d) 629.

Stribling v. Jolley

362 Mo. 995 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 14, 1952

Soc. v. Schoen, Mo. Sup., 93 S. W. 2d 669 ; State ex rel. Equality Sav. & Bldg., Assn. v. Brown, 334 Mo. 781 , 68 S. W. 2d 55 , and cases cited; Kingshighway Presbyterian Church v. Sun Realty Co., 324 Mo. 510 , 24 S. … Bankers’ Mortgage Co. v. Lessley, 31 S. W. 2d 1055 , 1. c. 1058. In ruling that case we quoted with approval the following from Brown v. MK&T Ry. Co., 175 Mo. 185, 188 , 74 S.

Lash v. Parlin

78 Mo. 391 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1883

Rollins v. Claybrook, 22 Mo. 407; Moss v. Green, 41 Mo. 389; Briggs v. Munchon, 56 Mo. 467 ; 1 Greenleaf Ev., § 284 a. The memorandum offered in evidence was as follows: ‘ Brookfield, September 10th, 1874. … Browne in the fourth edition of his work, section 372, says: “ It is necessary that the memorandum should show who are the parties to the contract by some reference sufficient to identify themand he cites Champion v.

Antioch Cmty. Church v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Kan. City

543 S.W.3d 28 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 3, 2018

To the extent Highlands Homes Association v. Board of Adjustment, 306 S.W.3d 561 , 565 (Mo. App. 2009), State ex rel. Branum v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Kansas City, Mo., 85 S.W.3d 35 , 39 n.1 (Mo. … The courts may not substitute their discretion for that of the board. State ex rel. Nigro v. Kansas City, 325 Mo. 95 , 27 S.W.2d 1030 , 1033 (Mo. banc 1930) ; Brown v. Beuc, 384 S.W.2d 845 , 850 (Mo. App. 1964).

State ex rel. Howard v. Estate of Timbrook

240 Mo. 226 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 27, 1912

Judge Cooley states the rule by quoting from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Maine in Brown v. … The case of Burke v. Brown, 148 Mo. 309 , was decided under the Law of 1872, and for that reason does not contravene what is here said.

State ex rel. Linn County v. Adams

172 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 18, 1903

[Jackson County v. Stone, 168 Mo. 577 ; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 153 Mo. 194 ; State ex rel. v. Brown, 146 Mo. 401 ; State ex rel. v. Wofford, 116 Mo. 220 ; Givens v. Daviess Co., 107 Mo. 603 ; Gammon v. … McGrath v. Walker, 97 Mo. 162 , to which we are cited. In that case there was a statute expressly providing a per diem compensation for the members of the state board of equalization (R.

State ex rel. Brison v. Lingo

26 Mo. 496 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1858

.; Commonwealth v. Brown, 1 Serg. & Raw. 385; Commercial Bank of Rodney v. State, 4 Smedes & M. 490 ; 2 Kydd on Corp. 439; State Bank v. State, 1 Blackf. 272 ; Commonwealth v. Brickett, 2 Va. cases, 51; Rex v. … The city council is composed of two boards — the board of aldermen and the board of delegates ; and though, as to the officers appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the board of aldermen, the right of removing such resides

Inhabitants of Carondelet v. Dent

18 Mo. 284 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1853

This case, then, viewed as disconnected with the survey of Brown, is unlike both those of Chouteau v. Eckart, and Mackay v. Dillon, 2 and 4 Howard. In the ease of Chouteau v. Eckart, the claim of the village of St. … In the case of Mackay v. Dillon, in which the extent of the St. Louis commons was in question, there was a survey accompanying the claim, as laid before the board, and a definite number of acres claimed.

Hogan v. Page

22 Mo. 55 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1855

Tillier, in the case of Bissell v. Penrose, filed the claim in the office of the recorder ; prosecuted it before the board of commissioners. … The record showed the case was within the principle of Bissell v.

Big Lake Drainage District v. Rolwing

265 Mo. 450 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 29, 1915

In due time the board of, supervisors reported to the court, as adopted by them,; the report of the board of engineers upon a plan for. reclamation. … Nor does the fact that* the court inadvertently retained in the decree the-eighty acres of Emily Brown after the articles of as-, sociation had been so amended as to exclude them.’Emily Brown was not served with process and

State ex rel. Niess v. Junkins

572 S.W.2d 468 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 6, 1978

In Moore v. … Herbert v. Downey, 572 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. banc 1978), decided concurrently.

Tendai v. Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts

77 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 11, 2002

In conclusion, the court ordered, “This cause is reversed and remanded to the Board of Registration for the Healing Arts.” This Court examines its jurisdiction sua sponte. Greenbriar Hills Country Club v. … Crites v. Sho-Me Dragways, 719 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Mo. banc 1986). The circuit court’s partial reversal and remand to the Board leaves open a part of the case that, theoretically, could result in a ruling in Dr.

Le Beau v. Gaven

37 Mo. 556 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1866

In 1835 this lot was marked on Brown’s plat of surveys of block No: 46 of the city of St. … Stat. 440, § 4; West v. Cochran, 17 How., U. S. 403.

State Ex Rel. Teefey v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City

24 S.W.3d 681 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 27, 2000

Columbus Park Community Council v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, 864 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Mo.App.1993). … City of Dellwood v. Twyford, 912 S.W.2d 58, 59 (Mo. banc 1995), citing Morrow v. City of Kansas City, 788 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Mo. banc 1990); Miller v. City of Manchester, 834 S.W.2d 904, 907 (Mo.App.1992).

Twentieth Judicial Circuit of State of Missouri v. Board of Commissioners

911 S.W.2d 626 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 19, 1995

Cannon v. Nikles, 235 Mo.App. 1094 , 151 S.W.2d 472, 475 (1941). Thus, the clerk is an agent of the circuit judge and possesses the statutory authority to perform certain tasks. … Chassaing v. Mummert, 887 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Mo. banc 1994).

State ex rel. Bornefeld v. Kupferle

44 Mo. 154 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1869

(Brison v. Lingo, 26 Mo. 496 ; McElhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379 ; Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535 .) … The New York Court of Appeals, in a late case, held the same doctrine announced in the case from Vermont. ( See The People v. Lacoste, 37 N. Y. 192 ; State v. Brown, 34 Miss. 688 .)

State Ex Rel. Penrose v. Killoren

354 Mo. 22 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 8, 1945

Wells v. Hough, 193 Mo. 615 , 91 S. W. 905 ; Hale v. Stimson, 198 Mo. 134 , 95 S. W. 885 ; State ex rel. Brown v. Stewart, 313 Mo. 1 , 281 S. … Gantt v. Brown, 238 Mo. 560 , 142 S. W. 422 .