Case law

Gerardi v. Christie

148 Mo. App. 75 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1910

[Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580 , 41 S. W. 960 ; Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262 , *92 56 S. W. 907 .] … [Kellog v. Schnaake, Heim v. Vogel, supra; Murphy v. Simpson, 42 Mo. App. 654 .]

THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE MISSOURI BAPTIST CONVENTION v. WINDERMERE BAPTIST CONFERENCE CENTER, INC., JAMES L. HILL, RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL CITY BANK OF THE MIDWEST, CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, INC., and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE MISSOURI AGENCY, INC., Defendants/Respondents.

Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2014

The three previous opinions are: The Executive Bd. of Missouri Baptist Convention v. Carnahan, 170 S.W.3d 437 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (Windermere I); The Executive Bd. v. … See also Jimmy Jones Excavation v. JDC Structural Concrete, 404 S.W.3d 922, 923-24 (Mo.App. 2013); Wichita Falls PCA v.

Fender v. Haseltine

106 Mo. App. 28 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1904

Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580 ; Pratt v. Conway, 148 Mo. 291 ; Com’l Bank v. Wood, 56 Mo. App. 217 ; Wayman v. Jones, 58 Mo. App. 313 ; Amer. Nat’l Bank v. Klock, 58 Mo. App. 335 ; Regan v. Williams, 88 Mo. App. 577 . … Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580 ; Bensieck v. Cook, 110 Mo. 173 ; Burnham v. Dorr, 72 Maine 198 . So that part of the case looking to a reformation of the deed was a burden which plaintiff need not have assumed.

Paskon v. Salem Memorial Hospital District

806 S.W.2d 417 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1991

The bylaws adopted by the Board include the following provision for an Executive Committee: “ARTICLE V COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ****** 2. … Louis v. Bross, 122 S.W.2d 35 , 39 (Mo.App.1938). (Emphasis added.)

Eureka Fire Protection District of St. Louis County v. Hoene

623 S.W.2d 79 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1981

Spitcaufsky v. Hatten, 353 Mo. 94 , 182 S.W.2d 86, 110 (banc 1944); Gladden v. Kansas City, 536 S.W.2d 478, 480 [3] (Mo.App.1976). … State Highway Commission v.

Consolidated School District Number 2 v. King Ex Rel. Dresselhaus

786 S.W.2d 217 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1990

City of Cabool v. Missouri State Board of Mediation, 689 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo.1985) (en banc); Knapp v. Missouri Local Gov’t Employees Retirement System, 738 S.W.2d 903, 912 (Mo.App.1987). … Bank of Washington v. McAuliffe, 676 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Mo.1984) (en banc). In Shaw v.

Speer v. City of Joplin

839 S.W.2d 359 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1992

V of the Missouri Constitution of 1945. State v. Morris, 221 S.W.2d 206, 209 [5] (Mo.1949). State v. Simmons, 299 S.W.2d 540, 545[4] (Mo.App.1957). … That action was affirmed by the Board. In so doing, the Board acted within the authority of § 5.11. In this respect, this case differs from Stovall v.

Orders Pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and/or 84.16(b)

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2016

ED103286 EARL CHANCE PITT, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 2. ED103310 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.D.R. 3. ED103388 IN MATTER OF THE CARE & TREATMENT OF KERRY BROWN CORRECTION(S): 1. … ED101640 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V JASON R. SHELL, APP

State v. Kirksey

547 S.W.2d 149 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 1977

Billings v. State, 503 S.W.2d 57, 60 [7] (Mo.App.1973). … State v. Burke, 462 S.W.2d 701, 704 [4] (Mo.1971); State v. Burrage, 418 S.W.2d 101, 107 [11] (Mo.1967).

School District No. 6, Township 63, Range 29 v. Burris

84 Mo. App. 654 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1900

State v. Rombauer, 101 Mo. 499 ; State v. Rombauer, 105 Mo. 103 ; State v. Ganzhorn, 52 Mo. App. 221 ; Railway v. McGregor, 53 Mo. App. 366 ; State v. Allen, supra. … But as has been already stated, an appeal or writ of error will not lie from the decision of the board of arbitrators. In State v. St.

Jones v. Western Missouri Mental Health Center

840 S.W.2d 278 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1992

See Shearman v. University City Public School Dist., 617 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. banc 1981). Mr. Jones asserts one issue on appeal. … Koerper & *280 Co. v. Unitel International, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Mo. banc 1987).

Division of Youth Services v. Hopson

933 S.W.2d 917 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1996

In our appellate review, we must not substitute our judgment for that of the Personnel Advisory Board, but must treat the Board’s decision as if it had been directly appealed to this court. Prenger v. … Gerig v. Board ofEduc., 841 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1992). A court reviewing an administrative agency’s decision of law is not bound by the substantial evidence test. Central Bank of Clayton v.

Ricks v. Missouri Local Government Employees' Retirement System

981 S.W.2d 585 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1998

Kendrick v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 945 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Mo.App. 1997); Fritzshall v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 886 S.W.2d 20, 23 (Mo.App.1994). … Because the Board’s finding of no mistake sufficient to warrant reeission is based on competent and substantial evidence, this court must uphold the determination of the Board. Point denied. V.

In Re Thomas

926 S.W.2d 163 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1996

Thompson v. Southwest School District, 483 F.Supp. 1170, 1182 (W.D.Mo.1980). The Board made findings of fact sufficient to support the Thompson factors. … Teacher cites to Stewart v. Board of Educ. of Ritenour Consol. School Dist. in support of this assertion. 538 S.W.2d 765 (Mo.App.1976).

State v. Martin

792 S.W.2d 37 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 29, 1990

State v. Sayles, 579 S.W.2d 748, 751 [3] (Mo.App.1979). There was sufficient evidence to find defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the first-floor apartment. See State v. … State v. Johns, 679 S.W.2d 253, 262 [15] (Mo. banc 1984). *39 Further, as in State v. Butler, 676 S.W.2d 809, 812-813 [3, 4] (Mo. banc 1984), it was inevitable the property would have been discovered.

Burns v. Harris

358 S.W.2d 257 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1962

* * ”, In Magenheim v. … the board — until compliance therewith is rendered. * * * ” In Lemasters v.

State v. Henderson

750 S.W.2d 507 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1988

State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Mo. banc 1983), and State v. O’Dell, 684 S.W.2d 453, 460 (Mo.App.1984). … See State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d at 698 .

Martin v. Harrington

174 Mo. App. 707 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1913

[Underwood v. Lovelace, 61 Ala. 155 ; Whittemore v. Wentworth, 76 Maine, 20; Brown v. Weber, 38 N. Y. 187, 191 ; Fain v. Turner, 96 Ky. 634, 638 ; Wood v. Corcoran, 1 Allen, 405 ; Packer v. Ben *712 ton, 35 Conn. 343 .] … And this is the law as stated in Browne on the Statute of Frauds, sec. 193. And it is in accord with our ruling in Brown v. Corey, 74 Mo. App. 462 , and the rule stated in 29 American and English Ency. of Law, 912.

Brehe v. Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

213 S.W.3d 720 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2007

See Gott v. Dir. of Revenue, 5 S.W.3d 166, 159-60 (Mo. banc 1999); Mary S. Riethmann Trust v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 46, 48 (Mo. banc 2001). … In Bowalick v.

Pikey v. Bryant

203 S.W.3d 817 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2006

Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo. banc 1993). A court will, as a matter of discretion, review a case on its merits where disposition is not hampered by rule violations. Id. … Two Missouri cases, *822 Brown v. Hamid, supra, and Baugher v.