Case law

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.

State ex rel. Dane v. State

115 S.W.3d 876 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2003

Beggs v. Dormire, 91 S.W.3d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 2002). … It is clear from the Board’s report that the Board was aware that Dane had previously participated in the long-term drug treatment program.

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 .

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).

Capital Bank v. Barnes

277 S.W.3d 781 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2009

Petrol Properties, Inc. v. Stewart Title Co., 225 S.W.3d 448, 453 (Mo.App. S.D.2007). A tenancy by the entirety means that a “husband and wife hold property as one person.” Brown v. … Brown, 820 S.W.2d at 336 . A tenancy by the entirety can be severed by consent, agreement or acquiescence. Langworthy v. Preston, 975 S.W.2d 249, 252 (Mo.App. W.D.1998).

State ex rel. School District No. 1 v. Denny

94 Mo. App. 559 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 13, 1902

The board of arbitration was a judicial tribunal.' … A judgment is defined to be “the conclusion of the law upon facts found.” 1 Freeman on Judgments, see. 2; Orvis v. Elliot, 65 Mo. App. 96 .

Grannemann v. Columbia Insurance Group

931 S.W.2d 502 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1996

Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). … The Supreme Court discussed the doctrines of waiver and estoppel in Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 776 S.W.2d 384 (Mo.banc 1989).

Goodwin v. Goodwin

583 S.W.2d 559 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 22, 1979

Morgan v. Morgan, 555 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Mo.App.1977); Kipper v. Vokolek, 546 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Mo.App.1977). … Saigh v. Busch, 396 S.W.2d 9 .

Shepard v. South Harrison R-II School District

718 S.W.2d 195 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1986

Shepard’s argument, Pollard v. … Shepard and in the Board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board may be deemed to have taken notice of the regulations. Prokopf v.

Arnold v. Worth County Drainage District, No. 1

209 Mo. App. 220 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1921

[See, also, 3 Abbott on Muncipal Corporations, secs. 955, 973; Nugent v. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, 58 Miss. 197 ; Hensley v. Reclamation Dist., No. 556. 121 Cal. 96 ; Sels v. … Greene, 88 Fed. 129 , 81 Fed. 555 ; Board of Improvement of Sewer Dist. No. 2 v. Moreland, 127 S. W. 469 (Ark.); Lamar v. Road District, 201 S. W. 890 (Mo.); 14 Cyc. 1057; 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2nd Ed.), p. 235.]

JANET DAILEY, CLINT SMITH, SHARON K. JOBE and DONALD W. INGRAM, CO-TRUSTEES of the WILLIAM and JANET DAILEY TRUST, Relators/Petitioners-Respondents v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the CITY OF BRANSON, MISSOURI, and the CITY OF BRANSON, MISSOURI, Defendants/Respondents-Appellants.

Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2014

"Only where the board exceeds its authority should the reviewing court hold the board's ruling to be illegal and void." Baumer v. City of Jennings, 247 S.W.3d 105, 111 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). … See White v.

Worthington v. Lindell Railway Co.

72 Mo. App. 162 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1897

Meriwether v. R’y, 45 Mo. App. loc. cit. 534; affirmed in Schepers v. *167 R’y, 126 Mo. loc. cit. 673. … Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 97 ; Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31 ; R. S. 1889, sec. 2047.

Waters v. G & B FEEDS, INC.

306 S.W.3d 138 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2010

Gibson v. Adams, 946 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Mo.App.1997). … Further, in Taylor v.

Sprague v. City of Springfield

641 S.W.2d 814 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1982

Under ¶ 536.140-3 and Bergman v. Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Retirement System of St. … Defendants cite Fischer v.

Community Title Co. v. Roosevelt Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

670 S.W.2d 895 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1984

The Bank Board’s regulatory control is so pervasive as to leave no room for state regulatory control. Conference of Federal Savings and Loan Assn’s v. … Rettig v.

Tuller v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

241 Mo. App. 68 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1950

As stated by our Supreme Court in Mershon v. … Walker v. Pickwick Hotel, 211 S.W. (2nd) 55 .

State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Bonacker

923 S.W.2d 467 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 6, 1996

See Moore v. City of University City, 851 S.W.2d 118 (Mo.App.1993), and Medvik v. Ollendorff, 727 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App.1987). … The respondent is directed to take no action to enforce the order entered October 3,1995, in the case of Tame-la Wilson v.

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.

Boyle v. Trump

584 S.W.2d 119 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1979

The Board questioned plaintiff about his performance while in service and by a vote of 5 to 0 denied plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff filed a petition in the circuit court for review of the Board’s denial of his claim. … As held in Iron County v.

Moody v. Hicks

956 S.W.2d 398 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1997

State v. Payne, 660 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Mo.App.E.D.1983); State v. Amrine, 741 S.W.2d 665, 671 (Mo.bane 1987). … Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Mo.banc 1993). Point denied. V.Other Points Relied On We summarily deny plaintiffs three remaining points.