Case law

Gilstrap v. Osteopathic Sanatorium Co.

224 Mo. App. 798 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 11, 1929

Brown. Dr. … [McDonough v. Freund, 19 S.W.2d 285 ; Owens v. McCleary, 313 Mo. 213 ; Eichholz v. Poe, 217 S.W. 282 ; Noren v. American School of Osteopathy, supra.]

Young v. Consolidated School District No. 3

196 Mo. App. 419 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1917

The Supreme Court, in State ex rel. v. Jones, 155 Mo. 570, 576 , 56 S. … This plainly implies the right of the school board,, and not the voters, to select all new school house sites in city, town and consolidated districts. In Martin v. Bennett, 139 Mo. App. 237, 245 , 122 S.

Martin C. Heck, Jr., and Victoria Heck d/b/a Pacific Mobile Manor v. City of Pacific and City of Pacific Board of Zoning Adjustment

447 S.W.3d 202 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the decision of the board, we view the evidence, and its reasonable inferences, in a light most favorable to the board findings. Ogawa v. … Hoffmann v. Kinealy, 389 S.W.2d 745, 750 (Mo. banc 1965).

First Community State Bank of Savannah v. Pemberton

493 S.W.2d 692 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1973

Coleman v. W. Va. O. & O. L. Co., 25 W.Va. 148 , l. c. 168. … Another important case in this line is Elblum Holding Co. v. Mintz, 120 N.J.L. 604 , 1 A.2d 204 , l. c. 207.

Krug v. Village of Mary Ridge

271 S.W.2d 867 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1954

Brotherhood of Stationary Engineers v. City of Louis, Mo.App., 212 S.W.2d 454 ; Vest v. Kansas City, 355 Mo. 1 , 194 S.W.2d 38 ; State ex rel. Hewlett v. … Frago v. City of Irondale, Mo.Sup., 263 S.W.2d 356 ; Steiger v. City of Ste. Genevieve, 235 Mo.App. 579 , 141 S.W.2d 233 ; Village of Beverly Hills v.

Schulze v. Erickson

17 S.W.3d 588 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 16, 2000

(quoting City of Jackson v. Southard, 869 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Mo.App.1994)). The right to appeal is statutory. Mo. Const. Art. V, § 5; Committee for Educ. Equality v. State of Missouri, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994). … McGhee v.

Merchant v. Bothwell

60 Mo. App. 341 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1895

Cooley on Torts, 464; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 170 . In Watson v. … Also Turner v. Franklin, 29 Mo. 285 ; Barr v. Boyles, 96 Pa. St. 31-36; Marks v. Sullivan, 33 Pac. Rep. 224 . Now, in the light of these well settled principles, the lower court very clearly misdirected the jury.

Aaron M. Malin v. Missouri Association of Community Task Forces (d/b/a/ ACT Missouri)

Missouri Court of Appeals · May 16, 2023

McKay v. Peloza, 658 S.W.3d 195, 196 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Goerlitz v. … ACT Missouri's by-laws and actual practices are in stark contrast to those in North Kansas City Hospital Board of Trustees v. St. Luke's Northland Hospital, 984 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. App.

Shock v. Berry

221 Mo. App. 718 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1926

J., pp. 623, 644; Zumwalt v. Zumwalt, 3 Mo. 269 ; Kinealy v. Macklin, 67 Mo. 95 ; State ex rel. v. Talty, 139 Mo. 379, 391 ; Karabacek v. Richards, 249 Mo. 608 ; Othenin v. Brown, 66 Mo. App. 318 ; McMurray v. … [Othenin v. Brown, supra; McMurray v. Bank, supra; see, also, Hawley v. Whitaker (Texas), 33 S. W. 688 .]

Loman v. Tharp

542 S.W.2d 306 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1976

before the board of aldermen sitting as a board of impeachment. … Kendall v. Wilson, et al., 151 Mo.App. 719 , 132 S.W. 623, 624, 625 (1910).

State v. Hunter

783 S.W.2d 493 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1990

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 , 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). … In State v.

State ex rel. Morehead v. Cartwright

122 Mo. App. 257 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1907

We readily concede that the appointment of the district clerk should have been made by the board at a regular or special meeting thereof. [Pugh v. School District No. 5, 114 Mo. App. 688 .] … [Usher v. Telegraph Co., (not yet reported).] The school board by a course of conduct extending over a period of years recognized Mr.

Union Electric Co. v. Estes

534 S.W.3d 352 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2017

See, e.g., Drey v. … that the assessed value fixed by the Board of Equalization is correct.”); Cohen v.

Pendergist v. Pendergrass

961 S.W.2d 919 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1998

Brown v. New York Health and Hosp. Corp., 225 A.D.2d 36 , 648 N.Y.S.2d 880, 886 (N.Y.App.Div.1996). … Brown, 648 N.Y.S.2d at 886 .

Taylor v. School District No. 3, Township 38, Range 32

60 Mo. App. 372 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1895

Such contract is no contract which the board of directors are authorized to make, unless made in the manner and under the conditions required by the terms of the statute. Crutchfield v. Warrensburg, 30 Mo. App. 456 . … Crutchfield v. Warrensburg, supra; Woolfolk v. County, 83 Mo. 506 . The law will not make that valid without writing which the law requires should be in writing. Chase v. Railroad, 97 *376 N. Y. 389 .

River Fleets, Inc. v. Carter

990 S.W.2d 75 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1999

Appellant resubmitted its request for a refund to the new board of trustees in February, 1997. On June 19, 1997 the board approved the refund request but denied a request for interest on the refunded fees. … Among the numerous cases supporting this well settled proposition is Beatty v. Metropolitan St.

Hudson v. State

190 S.W.3d 434 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2006

(quoting State v. Brown, 998 S.W.2d 531, 550 (Mo. banc 1999)). I. … See State v.

De Andrea Gray v. State of Missouri

498 S.W.3d 522 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2016

Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721, 730 (Mo. banc 2002), disagreed with on unrelated grounds by State ex rel. Zinna v. Steele, 301 S.W.3d 510, 516-17 (Mo. banc 2010). … State v. Onate, 398 S.W.3d 102, 106 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting Brown, 66 S.W.3d at 731 n.5).

Otey v. Otey

723 S.W.2d 600 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1987

R_ v. R_, 685 S.W.2d 598, 601-602 [2] (Mo.App.1985). Credibility is for the trial court. Morgan v. Morgan, 701 S.W.2d 177, 179 [2] (Mo.App.1985). We review the judgment for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. … Brown v. Brown, 537 S.W.2d 434 , 437 — 8[6] (Mo.App.1976). However, the trial court does not have to do so, and the general rule is a modification is effective as of the date the judgment is entered.

Raney v. Home Insurance

213 Mo. App. 1 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1922

In that year he was sued by one William Brown and fearing that Brown might recover a judgment against him, he conveyed this land to his minor son, C. E. … [Lee v. Bowman, 55 Mo. 400 ; Brown v. Baldwin, 121 Mo. 106 , 25 S. W. 858 ; Marlow v. Liter, 87 Mo. App. 584 ; Richmond v. Ashcraft, 137 Mo. App. 191 , 117 S. W. 689 .]