Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
516 results
1.60s
Missouri Attorney General Reports · Nov 23, 2009
Attorney General Opinion 116-2006, p. 4 (citing Dorf v. Skolnik , 280 Md. 101 , 115 , 371 A.2d 1094 , 1101-02 (Md. Ct. App. 1977) and quoting State ex rel. Fugina v. Pierce , 191 Wis. 1 , 3 , 209 N.W. 693 (1926)). … Wolff Shoe Co. v. Dir. of Revenue , 762 S.W.2d 29 , 32 (Mo. banc 1988) (quoting Harrison v. MFA Mut. Ins. , 607 S.W.2d 137 , 146 (Mo. banc 1980)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Oct 4, 2007
Rhodes v. Crouch , 621 S.W.2d 47 , 49 (Mo. banc 1981), quoted in Lewis v. Gibbons , 80 S.W.3d 461 , 467 (Mo. banc 2002). At times those two canons have worked at cross-purposes, as in Lewis v. … In Gavin v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Sep 7, 2000
Bates v. State , 664 S.W.2d 563 (Mo.App. 1983). If a claim is made against a member of the Board, or the Board itself, however, the Legal Expense Fund is unavailable to whichever defendants may be named. … Nowhere within the LEF provisions is there coverage for individuals appointed to a board such as the Board of County Visitors. In Cates v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Oct 4, 2007
*Page 5 State v. Goebel , 83 S.W.3d 639 , 645 (Mo.App.E.D. 2002). See also Crum v. Mo. Dir. of Revenue , 455 F.Supp.2d 978 (W.D. … The Supreme Court has issued an opinion relating to SB 40 boards and the power to tax. In State ex rel. Indus. Serv. Contractors, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · May 11, 1999
Does it matter how many/few hours the individual works or the manner in which the individual is compensated for the work done (ie. payroll v. reimbursements)? … Furthermore, in Polk Tp., Sullivan County v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Oct 11, 1991
This conclusion was based on the case Krug v. … Following the view in Braddy v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Mar 22, 2000
Spradlin v. City of Fulton , 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1998). The issue you present is how many affirmative votes are needed to transfer school property for those districts with seven board members. … McCollum v. Director of Revenue , 906 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1995). It is our conclusion that the board may conduct business with fewer than seven members present or voting.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Mar 22, 2000
Co. v. Morris , 222 S.W.2d 767 , 359 Mo. 564 (Mo. 1949). Words are to be given their ordinary meaning. U.S. v. Jones , F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1987). "Elect" is defined as "to select by vote for an office." … Thompsen-Stearns-Roger v. Schaffner , 489 S.W.2d 207 , 212 (Mo. 1973).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · May 18, 1993
In the situation about which you are concerned, the Board has attempted by rule to fix the terms of the officers at two years. In Kinsland v. … Kansas City v. LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112 , 116 (Mo. banc 1975). Therefore, we conclude that the part of the rule requiring a vote of not less than four (4) members of the Board to act is void.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Dec 3, 1986
Kirkpatrick v. Board of Election Commissioners of St. Louis County, 686 S.W.2d 888 (Mo.App. 1985). … Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Davis, 488 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. 1972).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Apr 18, 1988
Beiser v. Parkway School District, 589 S.W.2d 277 , 280 (Mo. banc 1979). … United Air Lines, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 377 S.W.2d 444 , 448 (Mo. banc 1964). Section 334.075 gives the Board the authority to mandate continuing education requirements.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Mar 19, 2001
Louis County v. Board of Education of Pattonville Consolidated School District R-3 , 315 S.W.2d 873 (Mo.App. 1958) and Mooney v. County of St. … See Baver v. Kincaid , 759 F. Supp. 575 (W.D.Mo. 1991). CONCLUSION Members of the board of directors of fire protection districts in St. Charles, Jackson and St.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Aug 23, 1984
Conley v. State, 46 Neb. 187 , 64 N.W. 708 , 710 (1895). … Walker v. Bus, 135 Mo. 325 , 36 S.W. 636 , 637 (banc 1896).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Jul 14, 1989
State v. Nevels, 712 S.W.2d 688 , 689-690 (Mo.App. 1986). This Court must be guided by what the legislature said, not by what the Court thinks it meant to say. Metro Auto Auction v. … State v. Sweeney, 701 S.W.2d 420 , 423 (Mo. banc 1985). [Parenthetical comment in original.]
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Mar 21, 1988
Section 115.267 explicitly gives the Board the authority to purchase and lease voting machines. See State ex rel. Cole v. … Cole v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Nov 7, 1983
The legislature has provided that the board "audit and report apparent violations . . . ." "[u]pon the sworn written complaint of any citizen or upon findings reported to the board . . ." In State ex rel. McTague v. … Taylor v. Wade, 300 Mo. 895 , 231 S.W.2d 179 , 181-182 (en banc 1950). Id. at 871.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Nov 10, 1980
State v. Kraus, 530 S.W.2d 684 , 685 (Mo. banc 1975). … Fort Zumwalt School District v. Dickherber, supra; and State ex rel. Safety Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Kinder, 557 S.W.2d 242 , 245 (Mo. banc 1977).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Jun 15, 1983
See, Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802 (Mo.App. 1978). A threshold question is whether the Board of Probation and Parole (hereinafter "Board") is a "public governmental body" within the meaning of the Open Meetings Law. … Pedroli v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 524 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App. 1975).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 1982
City of Willow Springs v. Missouri State Librarian, 596 S.W.2d 441 , 445 (Mo. banc 1980). In addition, we are to assign the words and phrases employed by the legislature their usual, plain and ordinary meaning. … Ashcroft v. Union Electric Co., 559 S.W.2d 216 , 221 (Mo.App. 1977). We find no express statutory provision granting authority to such a board to acquire legal title to property.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri Attorney General Reports · Jan 28, 1992
Furthermore, such section provides that the board shall exercise all powers of the board without delegation thereof to any other body or entity or association or to less than a quorum of the board. In Pearson v. … Louis County v. Board of Education of Pattonville Consolidated School District R-3, 315 S.W.2d 873 , 877 (Mo.App., St.L. 1958).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna