Case law

Homa v. Carthage R-IX School District

345 S.W.3d 266 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 4, 2011

’s decision.’ ” Stacy v. … The Board was free to believe all, part, or none of the witnesses’ testimony. See Hanford v. City of Arnold, 49 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Mo.App. E.D.2001).

State ex rel. Hughes v. Kramer

702 S.W.2d 517 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 1985

More recently, this court stated in State v. Motley, 546 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Mo.App.1976), that the power of a judge to grant probation was dependent upon statutory authorization. … Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Loeb, 318 S.W.2d 246, 252 (Mo.banc 1958); Springfield General Osteopathic Hospital v.

Hattervig v. de la Torre

870 S.W.2d 895 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1993

We review the Board’s decision, not the judgment of the circuit court. Franklin v. Board of Directors, 772 S.W.2d 873, 877 (Mo.App.1989). … Prenger v.

Mprove v. KLT Telecom, Inc.

135 S.W.3d 481 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2004

W.D.1994) (quoting Brown v. McIBS, Inc., Ill S.W.2d 337, 341 (Mo.App. E.D.1986)). … Brown, 111 S.W.2d at 341.

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Smith

991 S.W.2d 720 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 4, 1999

The trial court rejected the defense by relying on two cases: Nika Corp. v. Kansas City, 582 F.Supp. 348 (W.D.Mo.1983) and Williams v. Kansas City, 841 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App. W.D.1992). In Mitchell v. … Subsequently, in Browning v. White, 940 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Mo.App. S.D.1997), the Southern District of this court held the sovereign immunity doctrine applies to claims for conversion. Williams v.

City of Lake Lotawana v. Lehr

529 S.W.2d 445 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 1975

Christopher v. … In Tramonti v.

State ex rel. Vette v. Shevlin

23 Mo. App. 598 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1886

We are equally clear, in conformity with the views expressed by us in the case of Heaps v. … The case of McCreery v. Muench ( 7 Mo. App. 589 ), in so far as it conflicts with this view, is overruled.

State ex rel. Dayhoff v. Brodie

177 Mo. App. 382 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1914

To the same effect is the later case of Macey v. St. Louis, 213 Mo. 384, 394 . … We have bad occasion in Sanders v. Kansas City decided tbis term and Chestnut v. Kansas City, 171 Mo.

State v. Simmons

500 S.W.2d 325 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1973

Brown v. Parker, 375 S.W.2d 594, 601 [7] (Mo.App.1964). … Brown v. Parker, supra. However, for this rule to be considered on appeal the record must show that the witness answered so quickly there was no time to object.

Junkins v. Local Union No. 6313, Communication Workers

241 Mo. App. 1029 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1954

Snay v. Lovely (1931) 276 Mass. 159 , 176 NE 791 .” *1038 In Reed v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., Mo. App., 95 S. … Robinson et al. v.

Johnson v. Givens Real Estate, Inc.

612 S.W.2d 797 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1981

Brown v. Gamble Construction Co., Inc., 537 S.W.2d 685, 689 (Mo.App. 1976). An appellate court must review the record in a light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was rendered. Rule 74.04; Edwards v. … Brown v. Gamble Construction Co., Inc., supra at 688. Plaintiff was employed by Bathe and was under the immediate supervision of Bathe’s foreman.

Johnson v. State

189 S.W.3d 698 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 2006

Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210, 217-18 (Mo. banc 2001); Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721, 726 (Mo. banc 2002); Mansfield v. State, 187 S.W.3d 1 , 2 n. 1 (Mo.App.2006); Brown v. … Winfield v. State, 93 S.W.3d 732, 738-39 (Mo. banc 2002); see also Brown, 179 S.W.3d at 407 .

City of Eureka v. Litz

658 S.W.2d 519 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1983

Palmer v. St. Louis County, 591 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Mo.App.1979); Stickelber v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 442 S.W.2d 134, 136-37 (Mo.App.1969). … Stickelber v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 442 S.W.2d at 136 .

Chambers and Pouncey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

236 Mo. App. 823 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1942

The court opinion of Kansas upon which defendant bases its claim is Brown v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 146 Kansas Reports, 300-307. … v.

Miller v. Penmac Personnel Services, Inc.

68 S.W.3d 574 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2002

Porter v. Emerson Elec. Co., 895 S.W.2d 155, 161 (Mo.App.1995); see also § 287.495.1; Wright v. Sports Ass’d, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Mo. banc 1994); Causey v. McCord, 763 S.W.2d 155, 156 (Mo.App.1988). … Brown v. Sunshine Chevrolet GEO, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Mo.App.2000). Point denied.

Wurst v. National Oil & Supply Co.

780 S.W.2d 97 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1989

Citing Brown v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 665 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App.W.D.1983), plaintiff asserts his theory under § 324(A) “is supported by the law of this State.” … In reaching its decision, the Brown court factually distinguished its case from two Michigan cases, Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mich. 685 , 303 N.W.2d 702 (1981) and Sabraw v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins.

Roberts v. City of St. Joseph

637 S.W.2d 98 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 11, 1982

Howe v. St. Louis, 512 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.banc 1974); Milgram Food Stores, Inc. v. Ketchum, 384 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1964); State ex rel. Ludlow v. Guffey, 306 S.W.2d 552 (Mo. banc 1957). … Stine v. Kansas City, 458 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App.1970); Barhorst v. City of St.

White v. Scott County School District No. R-V

503 S.W.2d 35 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1973

Nothing in the Teacher Tenure Act has altered the right of a board of education to determine ex parte what nontenured probationary teachers it will or will not re-employ for the succeeding school year [cf. Williams v. … Board of Education of Parkway School Dist., 333 F.Supp. 816, 818-819 (E.D.Mo.1971), rev’d on other grounds 460 F.2d 824 (8th Cir.1972). Unlike the probationary teacher in Birdwell v.

State ex rel. American Institute of Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Missouri Real Estate Commission

461 S.W.2d 902 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1970

Wolfe v. Missouri Dental Board, 289 Mo. 520 , 233 S.W. 390 , demonstrates the significant difference between renewal and original issuance or suspension or revocation. … On this latter issue, relators have cited the decision of the California Court of Appeals in Hall v. Scudder, 74 Cal.App.2d 433 , 168 P.2d 990 .

State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Pinkley

474 S.W.2d 46 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1971

Leslie v. City of St. Louis, 47 Mo. 474 ; City of St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 Mo. 262 , 162 S.W. 596 ; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. … It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that “ * * * the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another * * Brown v. Morris, 365 Mo. 946 , 290 S.W.2d 160, 166 .