Case law

State of Missouri v. Sara M. Eyler

Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2023

Eyler relies on State v. Brown, 457 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) 6 and State v. Watkins, 804 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). Both cases are distinguishable. … This Court reversed the conviction because “no 6 Brown was overruled on other grounds by State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). State v. Turrentine, 524 S.W.3d 55, 58 n.5 (Mo. App.

State v. Britton

666 S.W.2d 11 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1984

State v. Clark, supra. Further, the complaint is groundless. There is not even an attempt to show the action of the trial court was the result of an improper basis. Brown v. State, 470 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.1971); State v. … State v. Fletcher, 619 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. banc 1981). The defendant contends there was error because the jury was permitted to see the brown bag and the marijuana.

Atkins v. McPhetridge

213 S.W.3d 116 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2006

National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co., 412 U.S. 67, 75 , 93 S.Ct. 1952 , 36 L.Ed.2d 752 (1973). … The Western District of this court, relying on National Labor Relations Board v.

State v. Jenkins

83 Mo. App. 322 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1900

In the recent case of State v. Brown, 153 Mo. 578 , the supreme court decided that there is no appeal from the circuit court to the appellate court, where the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor on an information. … My associates are of the opinion that an order dismissing the appeal is proper following the action of the supreme court in State v. Brown, supra.

City of Westport ex rel. Whiting v. Mastin

62 Mo. App. 647 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 20, 1895

Eddy, 123 Mo. 546 ; Kiley v. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 374 . … In Abbot v. Lindenbower, the following is quoted with approval from Dillon, J., in Allen v.

State v. Stavricos

506 S.W.2d 51 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1974

[Rule 28.18; State v. … State v.

Daniel Phillips, Vivian L. Eveloff, Julia King Muller, and Earl K. Shreckengast, and Jill L. Medintz v. City of Clayton, Missouri, June Frazier, in her capacity as City Clerk, WORP/CA Clayton LLC, and The Crossing in Clayton Redevelopment Corporation

Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2015

Anderson v. Smith, 377 S.W.2d 554, 557 (Mo. App. 1964); Carson v. Oxenhandler, 334 S.W.2d 394, 399 (Mo. App. 1960). Legislative acts are said to be permanent and general and presenting a new policy or plan. … See BHA Group Holding, Inc. v. Pendergast, 173 S.W.3d 373, 376 (Mo. App.

State ex rel. Sweaney v. Gentry

112 Mo. App. 589 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 8, 1905

Sweaney, claiming to act for the old board, not to pay any funds in his hands as aforesaid on any warrant issued by the new board of directors, nor to pay any of said funds to the new board of the village district. … [State ex rel. v. St. Louis Circuit Court, 1 Mo. App. 543 ; State ex rel. v. Thayer, 10 Mo. App. 540 ; Gamble v. Gibson, 10 Mo. App. 329 ; Hurck v. Erskine, 45 Mo. 484 ; State ex rel. v. Oliver, 116 Mo. 188 .]

Baxter v. School Dist. of Miller

217 Mo. App. 389 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1924

In Platte City to use of Prior v. Paxton, 141 Mo. App. 175 , 124 S. … In Blades v. Hawkins, 133 Mo. App. 328 , 112 S.

State v. Hall

829 S.W.2d 29 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1992

Officer Cole found a red canvas bag on the rear floor board of the car, opened the bag and took the .357 magnum out of it. … Rule 29.15(j); State v. White, 798 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo. banc 1990); Brown v. State, 785 S.W.2d 759, 761 (Mo.App.1990). Judgments affirmed. SMITH, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER, C.J., concur.

State ex rel. Goodnow v. Police Commissioners

80 Mo. App. 206 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1899

for cause, after a hearing by the board, and said board is hereby invested with exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. … State ex rel. v. Field, 99 Mo. 352 ; Kansas City v.

Steiger v. City of Ste. Genevieve

235 Mo. App. 579 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1940

[State ex rel. v. Trimble, 309 Mo. 546 , 274 S.W. 683 ; City of New Franklin v. Edwards (Mo. App.), 23 S.W.2d 235 .] … Not only does a board of aldermen or municipal council have the inherent power to amend or correct its records to make them speak the truth (State v.

Suburban Bank of Kansas City v. Jackson County State Bank

330 S.W.2d 183 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1959

Wall v. Fenner, 1956, 76 S.D. 252 , 76 N.W.2d 722, 726 . Similarly, the Supreme Court of Michigan in Moran v. … Dybdal v. State Securities Commission, 145 Minn. 221 , 176 N.W. 759 .

State v. Simpson

614 S.W.2d 31 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 1981

Notes on Use 3, MAI-CR2d 2.10; State v. Brown, 607 S.W.2d 881 (Mo.App.1980). … State v. Clark, 607 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Brown, supra. The judgment is affirmed. All concur. 1 . The sentences were ordered to be served consecutive to a prior 10-year sentence.

Ruppel v. City of Valley Park

318 S.W.3d 179 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 18, 2010

Todd v. Missouri United School Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Mo. banc 2007); ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). … Risher v. Farmers Ins., 200 S.W.3d 84, 88 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

Ste. Genevieve County Levee District 2 v. Luhr Bros., Inc.

288 S.W.3d 779 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2009

Woods v. Cory, 192 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Mo.App. S.D.2006), citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). … board, and that the board granted Loida the authority to accept the offer.

State v. Mitchell

558 S.W.2d 383 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1977

Gray was assisted by Nathaniel Holsey, age ten, who resides in a neighborhood near the Brown Shoe Company and who worked for Gray when the latter brought his food service operation to the Brown Shoe location. … In State v.

Coates v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

525 S.W.2d 654 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1975

See Webb v. Rencb, 476 S.W.2d 570 (Mo.App.1972) and Bickel v. American Trust Life Ins. Co., 468 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). … Furthermore, our Supreme Court, in Monterosso v. St. Louis Globe Democrat Publishing Co., Mo., 368 S.W.2d 481 (1963), citing Durant v. Industrial Products Mfg. Co., 241 Mo.App. 266 , 235 S.W.2d 574 (1951) and Quinn v.

Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Scott

553 S.W.2d 856 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 24, 1977

It is not necessary that the standards be unduly rigid or specific, “so long as they are capable of a reasonable application and are sufficient to limit and define the Board’s discretionary powers.” City of Santa Fe v. … See, e. g., City of New Orleans v. Pergament, 198 La. 852 , 5 So.2d 129 (1941); Maher v.

Arthaud v. Grand River Drainage District

208 Mo. App. 233 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 23, 1921

[Morrison v. Moery, 146 Mo. 543, 560 ; Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 258 .] … The meaning is that the board may employ one or more, the singular including the *240 plural. [State v. Sweeney, 93 Mo. 38, 41 ; Sec. 7054, R. S. 1919; Commonwealth v. Gabbert, 68 Kentucky, 438, 446.]