Case law

Stone v. Kelley & Son

59 Mo. App. 214 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1894

Mort., sec. 472; Jones on Liens, sec. 691; Hauch v. Ripley, 127 Ind. 151 ; McGee v. Edwards, 87 Tenn. 506 ; Easter v. Goyne, 51 Ark. 222 ; Charles v. Neigelsen, 15 Ill. App. 17 ; Sargent v. Usher, 55 N. … H. 287; Reynolds v. Case, 60 Mich. 76 ; White v. Smith, 44 N. J. Law, 105; Ingalls *221 v. Nance, 61 Vert. 582; Small v. Robenson, 69 Maine, 425; Wright v. Shearman, 52 N. W. Rep. (S. D.) —; Chapman v. Bank, 13 S. Rep.

Schofer v. Schofer

780 S.W.2d 69 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1989

Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The ultimate goal of the Dissolution of Marriage Act is to place each of the former spouses in an independent, self-sufficient status. Fausett v. … Brown v. Brown, 537 S.W.2d 434, 438 [10] (Mo.App.1976). This court finds that under the facts of this case the reduction shall be effective November 6, 1989. All concur. .

State v. Wandix

634 S.W.2d 203 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1982

State v. Cooper, 358 Mo. 269 , 214 *204 S.W.2d 19 [1-3] (1948). … See also State v.

Ruedlinger v. Long

283 S.W.2d 889 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1955

Louis v. Murphy, 359 Mo. 854 , 224 S.W.2d 68 , loc. cit. 73. … Louis Public Service Co., 360 Mo. 761 , 230 S.W.2d 698 ; Wills v. Berberich’s Delivery Co., 339 Mo. 856 , 98 S.W.2d 569 ; Moore v. International Shoe Co., Mo.App., 213 S.W.2d 215 ; Cheek v.

Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Girard Investment Co.

194 Mo. App. 661 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1916

In support of this argument we are cited to our decision in Marshall to use, v. Wisdom, 127 Mo. App. 640 . … In that case, as in this, the- initiatory ordinance in prescribing a time for the completion of the work made time of the essence of the proceeding and vitally differentiated the case from that of Jaicks v.

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

Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2014

ED100468 TIMOTHY ASHLOCK, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 2. ED100624 ROCKY OLIPHANT, APP V. SIF, RES 3. ED100718 LENA JOHNSTON, RES V VINCENZO ACQUAVIVA, APP 4. … ED100737 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V BOYCE BROWN, APP 5. ED101111 PARVEEN MOHAMMED, RES V COUNTRY MUTUAL INS., APP 6. ED101589 GEORGE KNIEST, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

State v. Loggins

778 S.W.2d 783 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1989

In State v. … Arthur Brown, who worked with the victim. Mr. Brown would indicate that he left work with the victim at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening prior to the murder. ...

Rodman v. Schrimpf

18 S.W.3d 570 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 30, 2000

Johnson v. Mehan, 731 S.W.2d 887 (Mo.App.1987). See also Byrd v. Brown, 613 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Mo.App.1981). … As the record indicates, the case was assigned to Judge Brown on August 24, 1998. As such, any matters, such as the motion to amend judgment, should have been ruled upon by the new trial judge, Judge Brown.

Fenton v. State

200 S.W.3d 136 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2006

As counsel points out to the court, the recent case of Brown v. … Again, the Brown opinion supplies such a remedy under these facts.

Pickett v. School District

193 Mo. App. 519 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 22, 1916

[Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 410 ; Neardley v. Morgner, 73 Mo. 25 ; Loomis v. Robinson, 76 Mo. 488 ; Turner v. Lord, 92 Mo. 113 , l. c. 117; Wabash Railroad Company v. Bowing, 103 Mo. App. 158 , l. c. 171.] … [Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo, 410; Bland v. Robinson, 148 Mo. App. 164 , l. c. 169; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wright, 38 Mo. App. 141 .]

State v. Williams

951 S.W.2d 332 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1997

I told him that we were going to find the weapons if we had to take his mother’s house apart board by board. Q: All right. Well, didn’t you say, I’ll tear the f_place apart? A: I could very well have said that. … State v. Brown, 924 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In addition, we also note that Defendant did not preserve this claim of error by raising it in the trial court, either at trial or in his motion for new trial.

Wilson v. KAL Motel, Inc.

524 S.W.3d 572 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2017

Then citing Cumming v. Allied Hotel Corp., 144 S.W.2d 177 , 181 (Mo. App. 1940), and Burnison v. Souders, 35 S.W.2d 619, 623 (Mo. … See, e.g., Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc., 231 Cal.App.4th 11 , 179 Cal. Rptr.3d 758 (Cal. Ct. App. £2014); Groh v. Westin Operator, LLC, 352 P.3d 472, 475 (Colo. App. 2013); Rayfield v.

Hume v. Eagon

73 Mo. App. 271 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1898

of directors of said bank and was also afterward on the eleventh day of January, 1897, duly ratified, confirmed and approved by said board of directors at a meeting of said board.” … Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. 527 . But these words are not always employed in their literal sense. In Kearney v.

Welch v. Welch

797 S.W.2d 742 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1990

O’Conner v. Follman, 747 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Mo.App.1988). … See State v. Haid, supra, at 102-103.

Keller v. Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan

800 S.W.2d 35 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1990

The court, however, relying on Brown v. Coastal Emergency Services Inc., 181 Ga.App. 893 , 354 S.E.2d 632 (1987), sustained the motion. … The trial court relied on Brown v. Coastal Emergency Services, Inc., 181 Ga.App. 893 , 354 S.E.2d 632 (1987) to support the grant of summary judgment. We find that case distinguishable.

Drainage District No. 1 v. Daudt

74 Mo. App. 579 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1898

It was therefore beyond the power of the board of supervisors to employ Mr. Daudt as tax attorney. In the case of Butler v. … Butler v. Sullivan Co., supra; Sturgeon v. Hampton, 88 Mo. 203 ; Dixon v. Livingston Co., 70 Mo. 239 .

State ex rel. Page v. Reorganized School District R-VI of Christian County

765 S.W.2d 317 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 1989

. *322 1915); Anderson v. Board, Etc., of Public Schools, supra; State ex rel. State Journal Co. v. McGrath, 91 Mo. 386 , 3 S.W. 846 (1886); State ex rel. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. … La Mar Construction Co. v. Holt County, R-II School District, supra. Due process did not require the Board to hold a post-award hearing to establish that it reasonably exercised its discretion. Kennedy v. City of St.

Hays v. Estate of Miller

189 Mo. App. 72 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1915

As one person does not usually pay for the board of another and such would require a special contract, the natural inference is that a bill for board and nursing against a person is for the board and nursing of such person … The cases of Bowman v. Shelton, and Hyde v.

Strom v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange

952 S.W.2d 794 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1997

In support of that hypothesis, Plaintiffs cite Brown Group, Inc. v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 649 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. banc 1983). … Webb v.

Rackley v. Firemen's Retirement System

848 S.W.2d 26 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1993

Fortney v. Joiner, 797 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Mo.App., W.D.1990). … See also Hagely v. Webster Groves Board of Education, 841 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Mo.1992).