Case law

Citizens State Bank v. State Banking Board

602 S.W.2d 895 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1980

See Marshfield Community Bank v. State Banking Board, 496 S.W.2d 17, 28 (Mo.App.1973). It is not required for the validity of administrative findings that they go into eviden-tiary detail. Glasnapp v. … The Commissioner and the Board are charged under the holding of Central Bank of Clayton v.

Hagely v. Board of Education

930 S.W.2d 47 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1996

See Elam v. Waynesville R-VI School Dist., 676 S.W.2d 880, 887 [4] (Mo.App.1984)(citing Magenheim v. Board of Education, 347 S.W.2d 409 (Mo.App.1961)). … Citing Dial v.

Guido v. Ray County Board of Services

422 S.W.3d 380 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2013

ORDER PER CURIAM: Angela Guido appeals the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the *381 Ray County Board of Services and three of its employees. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Bledsoe v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

448 S.W.3d 352 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2014

ORDER Per curiam: Michael Bledsoe appeals pro se the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole on his petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Boley v. Board of Education

908 S.W.2d 178 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1995

We review the decision of the Board of Education and not the decision of the trial court. Gerig v. Board of Education, 841 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). … The Board of Education’s decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion.

Mays v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

454 S.W.3d 909 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2015

ORDER PER CURIAM: Dallas Mays appeals the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole in his declaratory judgment action.

Fults v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

857 S.W.2d 388 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 25, 1993

Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 429 , 107 S.Ct. 2446, 2450 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386 , 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798)). … Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78 , 107 S.Ct. 2415, 2420-21 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). Here, Fults’ due process claim lacks merit.

Blackburn v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

83 S.W.3d 585 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2002

Accardi v. … In Fults v.

Langston v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

391 S.W.3d 473 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 26, 2012

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Parole Board. This appeal by Langston followed. Appellate review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. … See McDermott v.

Dade v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

194 S.W.3d 382 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2006

In his petition, Dade alleged that Respondents (the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”) and Larry Crawford, the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“DOC”)) had improperly applied Missouri law … Wheat v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 932 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Mo.App. W.D.1996); State ex rel. Kessler v. Shay, 820 S.W.2d 311, 313-14 (Mo.App. W.D. 1991).

Kaczynski v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

349 S.W.3d 354 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2011

Lute v. … Point V: “Seriousness of the Offense” In Point V, Kaczynski asserts that the trial court erred in granting the *363 Board’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in that the Board’s denial of parole based upon the “seriousness

Cotherine v. Board of Education

822 S.W.2d 881 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1991

We review the decision of the Board, an administrative agency, not the decision of the trial court. Benton-Hecht Moving & Storage v. Call, 782 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Mo.App.1989). … Toole v. Jones, 778 S.W.2d 376, 378 (Mo.App.1989). We view the evidence, together with all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s decision. Id.

Ridinger v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

189 S.W.3d 658 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2006

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. Mr. Ridinger filed this appeal. Standard of Review Appellate review of a summary judgment is de novo. Boersig v. Mo. … In Irvin v. Kempker, 152 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Mo.App.

Famous v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

433 S.W.3d 493 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2014

ORDER PER CURIAM: Ray Famous appeals the circuit court’s granting summary judgment for the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole in a declaratory judgment action. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Gordon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole

342 S.W.3d 926 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2011

Hubbard v. Board of Adjustment

779 S.W.2d 26 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1989

The petition named the Board of Adjustment of the City of St. Louis (Board) as defendant. … of said board is jurisdictional.”

Egan v. Missouri State Board of Registration

437 S.W.3d 351 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2014

Robert Egan appeals from the circuit court’s judgment affirming the discipline imposed by the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (“Board”) after a finding by the Administrative Hearing Commission (“AHC”) of

Robinson v. Board of Trustees

768 S.W.2d 100 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1988

City of Richmond Heights v. Board of Equalization, 586 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Mo. banc 1979). A contested case does not mean every case in which there may be a contest about rights, duties or privileges. Id. … Abney v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 608 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Mo.App.1980); Holt v. Rabun, 519 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Mo.App.1975).

Charron v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

403 S.W.3d 692 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2013

Char-ron’s current suit alleges that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole has violated his rights in connection with its determinations as to his eligibility for parole and/or conditional release.

Ordo v. Missouri Dental Board

689 S.W.2d 825 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1985

The findings of the AHC and the MDB are not supported by competent and substantial evidence based upon the whole record, as required by the holding in State Board of Registration for Healing Arts v. … In Consumer Contact Co. v.