Case law

Manchester Fire Protection District v. St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners

555 S.W.2d 297 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 12, 1977

Fire District of Lemay v. … Chilcutt v. Thatch, 359 Mo. 122, 129 , 221 S.W.2d 172, 176 (banc 1949). The judgment is affirmed. All concur.

Hiltner v. Kansas City

293 S.W.2d 422 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 9, 1956

See also Emery v. Thompson, 347 Mo. 494 , 148 S.W.2d 479, 480 ; Brown v. City of Craig, 350 Mo. 836 , 168 S.W.2d 1080, 1082 . … Brown v. City of Craig, supra.

Brummell v. Harris

162 Mo. 397 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 14, 1901

[Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Red. 726; Archer v. Helm, 69 Miss. 730 ; Meyers v. Johnson, 15 Ind. 261 ; Robinson v. Corn, 5 Ky. 125 ; Smith v. Stewart, 7 Ky. Law Rep. 287 ; Gwynn v. Schwartz, 32 W. Va. 487 ; Teass v. … Va. 1 ; Allen v. Reed, 51 Cal. 362 ; Williams v. Montgomery, 16 Hun. 50 ; Atchison v. Pease, 96 Mo. 566 ; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135 ; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 273 ; Major’s Heirs v. Rice, 57 Mo. 384 ; Jacobs v.

Wimberly v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri

688 S.W.2d 344 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 30, 1985

Relying on Brown v. … Atkins v. Missouri State Board of Accountancy, 351 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1961); McElvain v. St.

Stein v. McDonald

394 S.W.2d 297 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 13, 1965

Schmidt v. … Highfill v. Brown, supra, loc. cit. 664 [11], The order granting a new trial is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment for defendants. BARRETT and STOCKARD, CC, concur. PER CURIAM.

Tyler v. Wells

57 Mo. 472 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1874

Brown, and followed the decision of the board in regard to quantity ; but the survey was set aside and a new survey made, conforming it to Soulard’s survey, and upon this new survey a patent issued to Labeaume in 1852. … Cochran ( 17 How., 412 ): “ In 1810, the board of commissioners confirmed the grant to Labeaume, according to Sonlard’s survey.”

City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

278 Mo. 205 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 19, 1919

[Crecelius v. Railroad, 274 671. Glasse v. King, 195 S. W. 521 ; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. l. c. 532; Brown v. Chaney, 256 Mo. l. c. 225; Ranck v. Wickwire, 255 Mo. l. c. 56; Buttron v. … Louis, v. Calhoun, 222 Mo. l. c. 55; St. Louis v. Lawton, 189 Mo. l. c. 485; St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. l. c. 567; St. Louis v. Wetzel, 110 Mo. l. c. 265.]

Capra v. Phillips Investment Company

302 S.W.2d 924 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 10, 1957

Brown and Frank Criscione, one of Brown’s men, ran toward the heavy smoke in the alley. Brown stated smoke usually rises but when confined will go down. In about 30 seconds Brown heard some windows “pop out.” … could not see Brown he could see Brown’s lantern and it disappeared at the doorway from the dining room to the kitchen.

Federated Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Jones

798 S.W.2d 719 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 20, 1990

Brown Company, Sharon Jones’ employer. Sharon Jones subsequently filed an affidavit of exemption claiming entitlement to a ninety percent exemption on the garnishment. … See Drury Displays v. Board of Adjustment, 760 S.W.2d 112,114 (Mo. banc 1988). As a general rule the verification requirement is not so strict as to make an unverified petition “unsalvageable.” Id.

State ex rel. Public Schools of Stoddard County v. Crumb

157 Mo. 545 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1900

[Sturgeon v. Hampton, 88 Mo. l. c. 213; State ex rel. v. Hays, 52 Mo. 578 ; Browne’s Appeal, 69 Mo. App. 159 ; Keating v. Kansas City, 84 Mo. 415 ; Thomson v. Boonville, 61 Mo. 282 ; St. Louis to use v. … [Kearney v. Woodson, 4 Mo. 114 ; Hall v. Harrison, 21 Mo. 227 ; Bowling v. McFarland, 38 Mo. 465 ; Peake v. Bell, 65 Mo. 224 ; Moore v. Dixon, 50 Mo. 425 ; Vaughan v. Daniels, 98 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v.

State Ex Rel. v. Player

280 Mo. 496 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 2, 1920

There was no settlement with relator by the city, as in the case of Galbreath v. Moberly, 80 Mo. 484 , nor settlement and compromise, as in the case of McNulty v. Kansas City, 198 S.W. 186 , relied on by respondent. … Brown and Ragland, CC., concur.

Riley v. Holland

362 Mo. 682 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 12, 1951

Peck Co. v. Brown, 340 Mo. 1189 , 105 S. W. (2d) 909 .) We think that Sec. 1 of Art. VIH does harmonize with the Civil Service Amendment. … Plaintiff also relies on two New Jersey cases, Davaillon v. City of Elizabeth, 2 Atl. (2d) 369 and City of Camden v. Civil Service Commission, 29 Atl. (2d) 733, 33 Atl. (2d) 900.

Bowman v. Phelps County

330 Mo. 826 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 10, 1932

Brown v. Broaddus, 216 Mo. 336 , 115 S.W. 1018 , and Elliott v. … James Consolidated School District in Phelps County had no school attendance officer appointed by the board of education, as provided in Section 9435, supra.

Town of Carondelet v. Allen's Executors

13 Mo. 556 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1850

Louis — to-wit: Bingham v. Dent, Inhabitants of Carondelet v. Rolan Brown, Same v. Benjamin Allen, and Benoist Manschal v. … Paxtpe, Chairman of Board of Trustees [seal.] Of the Inhabitants of Carondelet.” P. L. McLaughlin, Register.

Board of Education of Bowling Green School District R-I v. Harness

338 S.W.2d 808 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 12, 1960

Goyette v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., Mo., 37 S.W.2d 552 , 555; A. P. Nolan Grading & Const. Co. v. Schilling, Mo.App., 293 S.W. 79 . … Empire District Electric Co. v. Johnston, supra; State ex rel. Chariton River Dr. Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283, 287 ; School District of Clayton v. Kelsey, 355 Mo. 478, 486 , 196 S.W.2d 860, 864 .

State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Remmers

340 Mo. 126 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 14, 1936

[Railroad v. State Board, 64 Mo. 294 .] ” [State ex rel. Teasdale v. Smith, 101 Mo. 174 , 14 S. W. 108 ; State ex rel. v. Caulfield (en banc), 333 Mo. 270, 273 , 62 S. W. (2d) 818, 819 ; and cases cited.] … Denison v. City of St. Louis, 90 Mo. 19, 22 , 1 S. W. 757 .] “The reason of this rule is the evident repugnance between the fixed terms and the power of arbitrary removal.” .[State ex rel. v. Brown, 57 Mo.

Monroe v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

297 Mo. 633 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 2, 1923

[Zimmerman v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 476 ; Henze v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 636 ; Hanlon v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 381 ; Stepp v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 235 ; Easley v. Railroad, 113 Mo. 236 ; Kenney v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 284 ; Gratiot v. … "On Reno v.

Yerington v. Riss

374 S.W.2d 52 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 13, 1964

Plaintiff relies primarily on Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Brown-Crummer Inv. … Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., supra, the principal case relied on by plaintiff.

George v. St. Louis Manufacturing Co.

159 Mo. 333 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 22, 1900

This machine planed the two sides of a board at the same time, as it passed through, by means of two sets of knives .revolving rapidly one above the other below the board. … Not three weeks before that, another man had been hurt there, and I took a stick to remove the clog, and I was thinking about myself, ‘If only you don’t — nothing happens to you as it did to Charley Brown,’ and at that moment

State ex rel. Knisely v. Board of Trustees of Young Women's Christian Ass'n

268 Mo. 163 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1916

Knisely v. Holtcamp, 266 Mo. 347 ; Knisely v. Leathe, 178 S. W. 453 ; and Knisely v. Leathe, 256 Mo. 341 . … Knisely v.