Case law

Bank of Corning v. Consolidated School District No. 6

227 Mo. App. 523 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1932

[Leicher v. Keeney, 110 Mo. App. 292, 296 ; Roth, Admr., v. City of St. Joseph, 180 Mo. App. 380 , 385.] … [Scott v. Bankers Union, 85 Pac. 604 ; Atkinson v. Waidman, 47 N. W. 317 ; Taylor v. Dansby, 3 N. W. 267 ; Browning v. Carson, 39 N. E. 1037, 1038 .]

Rice v. Huff

22 S.W.3d 774 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2000

Mahaffy v. City of Woodson Terrace, 609 S.W.2d 233, 238 (Mo.App.1980). A city street may only be abandoned “by an affirmative act on the part of the board of aldermen.” Brown v. … “It is undoubtedly true that the legislative power vested in a board of aldermen and the mayor can be exercised only by ordinance....” City of Jackson, to Use of Cape County Sav. Bank v.

Hayes v. WDL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

343 S.W.3d 719 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2011

See Gamble v. Browning, 277 S.W.3d 723, 729-30 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (stating a denial of summary judgment is not reviewable even if it is an appeal from a- final judgment except in limited circumstances); Stotts v. … Defendants rely on Rice v.

Stevenson v. City of St. Louis School District

820 S.W.2d 609 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1991

The Board of Education, as a subdivision of the State, is a public entity which is protected from an action in negligence by sovereign immunity. Bartley v. Sp. Sch. Dist. of St. … Brown v. St. Louis County, 792 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Mo.App.1990). As used in § 537.600.1(2), dangerous condition has a narrow meaning and refers to defects in the physical condition of the public entity’s property.

State ex rel. Bristol v. Walbridge

69 Mo. App. 657 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1897

State ex rel. v. Edwards, 104 Mo. 125 ; State v. Buchanan Co. Board of Education, 108 Mo. 235 ; Ward v. Board of Equalization of Gentry Co., 36 S. W. Rep. 648 ; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 62 Mo. … Cockerill v. Stafford, 102 Mo. 57 ; Smith v. C. & A. R. R., 119 Mo. 246 ; Sweet v. Maupin, 65 Mo. 65 ; Elfrank v. Seiler, 54 Mo. 134 . It comes too late here, and we rule this objection against the relator.

Wages v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad

110 Mo. App. 230 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1905

It is not so decided in the cases of Ferris v. Railroad, 30 Mo. App. 122 , and Board v. Railroad, 36 Mo. App. 151 , or the other cases cited by defendant. The syllabus in the Board case is somewhat misleading. … The judgment was manifestly for the right party (Brown v. Railroad, 78 S. W. Rep. 273 ) and is affirmed. All concur.

Cain v. Webster

770 S.W.2d 327 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1989

Mullen v. Renner, supra. See Cain v. Scott, 782 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir.1985); Cain v. State of Arkansas and Arkansas State Podiatry Board, 734 F.2d 377 (8th Cir.1984); Cain v. … See Whit *330 aker v. Coleman, 115 F.2d 305 (5th Cir.1940); Barrett v. Craven County Board of Education, 70 F.R.D. 466 (E.D.N.C.1976); Waltz v.

McLaran v. Crescent Planing Mill Co.

117 Mo. App. 40 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1906

Corp., sec. 2206; Cook on Corp., sec. 539; Wright v. Warren, 4 De Gex Rep. 367; Browne v. Collins, 12 Eq. 586; Ibotson v. Elam, 1 Eq. 186; Jacques v. Chamber, 2 Collyer 435.] … East Hampton Rubber Thread Co., 158 Mass. 84 , is cited and relied upon by appellant as authority for the action of the board of directors in rescinding the dividend, in that case it appears that the *51 board of directors

Pierce v. St. Louis Public Service Co.

380 S.W.2d 943 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1964

Alvey v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 231, 1 . c. 236; Tueteberg v. St. Louis Public Service Company, Mo.App., 41 S.W.2d 956 . … Other cases in point are Elgin v. Kroger Grocery and Baking Co., 357 Mo. 19 , 206 S.W.2d 501 ; Moore v. St. Louis Transit Co., 193 Mo. 411 , 91 S.W. 1060 ; Sollars v.

ACF Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri

309 S.W.2d 676 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1958

On the same day the telegram was sent to Brown, Western Union, in a telegram directed to appellant, reported its inability to deliver the telegram to Brown. … Brown testified that he thought he talked to appellant’s personnel representative Margol. Mr. Margol stated that on January 17, 1957, Brown came into the office and that he talked to Brown personally.

Moody v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm'rs

539 S.W.3d 784 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2017

See, e.g., Stanley v. City of Independence , 995 S.W.2d 485 , 488 (Mo. banc 1999) ; Oberkramer v. City of Ellisville , 706 S.W.2d 440 , 442 (Mo. banc 1986) ; Frazier v. City of Kansas City , 467 S.W.3d 327 , 337 (Mo. … The Board also seeks to distinguish Moyer v. St. Francois County Sheriff Department , 449 S.W.3d 415 (Mo. App.

Hamra v. Magna Group, Inc.

956 S.W.2d 934 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1997

He served as a member of both boards until 1991. Landmark established a deferred compensation plan for board members in 1985. … Brown, 42 Ct.Cl, 534, 206 U.S. 240 , 27 S.Ct. 620 , 51 L.Ed. 1046 (1907), “[W]hatever the consequences, we must accept the plain meaning of plain words.” 206 U.S. at 244 , 27 S.Ct. at 621 .

Noble v. Miley

20 Mo. App. 360 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 1886

Phelps v. McNeely, 66 Mo. 554 ; Price v. Hunt, 59 Mo. 258 . … , and that Brown’s debt would remain undischarged.

State Ex Rel. Fred Weber, Inc. v. St. Louis County, Missouri Board of Zoning Adjustment

205 S.W.3d 296 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2006

Ode v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 796 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App. W.D.1990). … The scope of review is whether the decision of the zoning board was legal in the sense of being authorized by law and whether it is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Eubanks v.

Tettamble v. State

798 S.W.2d 489 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1990

Herron v. State, 498 S.W.2d 530, 531 [1] (Mo.1973); Brown v. State, 492 S.W.2d 762, 762-63 [1] (Mo.1973).” Spencer v. State, 776 S.W.2d 428, 437 (Mo.App.1989). … One Sherry Fuller would have testified that on the day of the burglary in Iron County the movant boarded a bus at 6:00 a.m. in St. Louis bound for Kansas City.

Beth Lewis Maze & Unknown Similarly Situated Purchasers Contracts v. Bd. of Dirs. for the Commonwealth Postsecondary Educ. Prepaid Tuition Trust Fund

559 S.W.3d 354 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

The trial court overruled the Board's motion and granted summary judgment to Maze. … Lichtenstein v. Barbanel, 322 S.W.3d 27 , 35 (Ky. 2010) ; Pearce v. University of Louisville, by and through its Board of Trustees, 448 S.W.3d 746 , 749 (Ky. 2014). III.

Shinn v. United Railways Co.

146 Mo. App. 718 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1910

It is said that the cases of Browning v. Wabash, etc., Ry. Co., 124 Mo. 55 , 27 S. W. 644 , and Wheeler v. Bowles, 163 Mo. 398 , 63 S. … We are wholly unable to perceive how the doctrine of Browning v. Wabash, etc., R. R., 124 Mo. 55 , 27 S. W. 644 , and Wheeler v. Bowles, 163 Mo. 398 , 63 S.

State ex rel. Kizer v. Mennemeyer

421 S.W.3d 558 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2014

Dorsey v. Wilson, 263 S.W.3d 790, 791 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). A litigant seeking mandamus must allege and prove a clear, unequivocal, specific right to a thing claimed. State ex rel. Valentine v. … Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 618 (Mo. banc 2006); Dorsey, 263 S.W.3d at 791 .

Anderson v. Lebedun

782 S.W.2d 648 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 23, 1989

Guntli v. McLeod, 646 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Mo.App.1983). The court may not substitute its own judgment of the facts unless the Board’s judgment is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. … Kunz v. Personnel Advisory Board, 740 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Mo.App.1987); Bell v. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis, 711 S.W.2d 950, 955 (Mo.App.1986); Section 536.140.

Paul T. Lehmann v. Board of Education of the Fayette R3 School District

Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2022

R-2 v. Bd. of Aldermen, 66 S.W.3d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 2002); see also Airport Tech Partners, LLP v. … See Heifetz v.