Case law

Delay v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

174 S.W.3d 662 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2005

He asserted that the Board, in denying his parole, had violated his due process rights and the prohibition on ex post facto laws. The issues Delay raises were squarely decided in State ex rel Cavallaro v. … Wheat v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. Parole, 932 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo.App.1996); Cavallaro, 908 S.W.2d at 136 . *666 In this case, the Board denied Delay’s parole release based on the seriousness of the offense.

Shaffer v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

523 S.W.3d 544 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

ORDER PER CURIAM: Harry Shaffer appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief challenging the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s July 2014 decision setting

Odom v. State Board of Pharmacy

874 S.W.2d 547 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1994

Appellant appeals from the decisions of the Administrative Hearing Commission and State Board of Pharmacy revoking his license to practice pharmacy. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.26(b).

Johnson v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

92 S.W.3d 107 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

See Elliott v. Carnahan, 916 S.W.2d 239, 241 (Mo.App. W.D.1995). … See also Wheat, 932 S.W.2d at 839 (quoting Williams v.

Blue Ridge Bank v. State Banking Board

509 S.W.2d 763 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 6, 1974

Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589 , 103 S.W. 1078, 1082 [1] (banc 1907); State ex rel. Toliver v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 360 Mo. 671 , 230 S.W.2d 724, 730 [8] (1950). … We are required to view the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the Board [St. Louis County v.

Vernor v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

934 S.W.2d 13 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1996

Vernor filed a petition for declaratory *14 judgment seeking the circuit court’s declaration that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s extension of his conditional release date was illegal and void. … Wilson v. Unistrut Service Company of St. Louis, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 729, 781 (Mo.App.1993). In most instances, a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute an adjudication on the merits. Siampos v.

Cunningham v. Board of Aldermen of Overland

691 S.W.2d 464 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 14, 1985

Relying on Walmer Investment Co. v. … In Coots v. J. A.

Winfrey v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

521 S.W.3d 236 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 30, 2017

City of De-Soto v. Nixon, 476 S.W.3d 282, 286 (Mo. banc 2016). … Bray v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, 498 S.W.3d 514, 516 (Mo. App. 2016).

Brown Instrument Co. v. Universal Brick & Tile Co.

212 Mo. App. 462 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1923

If the material is not satisfactory to us it may be returned within sixty days from receipt thereof, and no extension of said trial period shall be binding on The Brown Instrument Company, unless first authorized by it in … In the event that the material is not accepted by us we agree to properly pack and return material to The Brown Instrument Company.

Reeves v. Mo Board of Probation & Parole

509 S.W.3d 128 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2016

Appellant appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for declaratory judgment seeking review of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s (“Respondent”) cancellation of his conditional release date.

Welty v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

759 S.W.2d 295 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1988

See State v. Pollock, 735 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Mo.App.1987); State v. O’Neal, 651 S.W. 2d 634, 636 (Mo.App.1983). … “The assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter for the board [trier of fact] hearing the testimony, and on review an appellate court must defer to its findings in that regard.” Ross v.

Board of Public Buildings v. GMT Corp.

580 S.W.2d 519 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1979

The condemnor, Board of Public Buildings, a body corporate and politic, created by § 8.010 RSMo.1969, and empowered to acquire by eminent domain real property necessary, useful, or convenient for the use of the Board in the … Missouri State Park Board v. McDaniel, 473 S.W.2d 774, 779 (Mo.App.1971).

Brown v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.

135 Mo. App. 624 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1909

[Clark v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 440 ; Lupe v. Railroad, 3 Mo. App. 77 ; Heil v. Railroad, 16 Mo. App. 363 .] … [The Westminster, 116 Fed. 123 ; Nordlinger v. United States, 127 Fed. 680, 683 ; Hatch v. Railroad, 107 N. W. 1087 .]

DANNY R. BROWN and DIANA BROWN, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

572 S.W.3d 154 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2019

, analyzed, and distinguished Manner v. … The Browns’ ambiguity argument here is built upon Manner and Ritchie and, in addition, Chamness v. American Family Mut. Ins.

Henning v. Board of Election Commissioners

787 S.W.2d 742 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1989

Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co., 771 S.W.2d 922, 924 [1,2] (Mo.App.1989). On December 1, 1988, the St. … Gilroy-Sims and Associates v. City of St. Louis, 697 S.W.2d 567, 569 [1,2] (Mo.App.1985).

Wheat v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

932 S.W.2d 835 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1996

As the Board notes, where a preliminary writ is denied, the petitioner may not appeal but must file for the writ anew in the next highest court. Williams v. Gammon, 912 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App.1995). … Schaefer v. Cleveland, 847 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Mo.App.1992).

Beard v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

488 S.W.3d 733 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016

ORDER PER CURIAM: Don Beard appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”) and Matt Strum, the Director of the Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services for the … Missouri Department of Corrections (“Director”) on Beard’s petition challenging the Board’s extension of his conditional release date due to his failure to successfully complete the Missouri Sexual Offender Program (“MoSOP

Jones v. Board of Police Commissioners

896 S.W.2d 655 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1995

*656 ORDER PER CURIAM: Erwin Jones appeals from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners revoking Jones’ commission to work as a private security officer. … Jones contends that, under § 561.016 RSMo 1994, the Board was required to consider his application for a commission, even though he had several pri- or convictions of serious felonies. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Vaughn v. Missouri Veterinary Medical Board

845 S.W.2d 723 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1993

Sims v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

502 S.W.3d 37 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2016