Case law

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).

Woodson v. City of Kansas City

80 S.W.3d 6 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2002

In Points II and V, he claims that the Board’s requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law in affirming the demolition order were deficient and did not support its decision. … When a decision of an administrative agency or board in a contested case, as authorized by § 536.100, is appealed, we review the agency or board’s decision, not the judgment of the circuit court. Graves 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.

Stewart Concrete & Material Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co.

433 S.W.2d 76 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1968

In Stamm Electric Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. et al., 350 Mo. 1178 , 171 S. … Plaintiff quotes as follows from our Supreme Court en banc in the case of Stamm Electric Co. v. Hamilton-Brown.

Nuckols v. Andrews Investment Company

364 S.W.2d 128 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1962

In April, 1960, Butch went to work for the Johnsons as a regular farm hand for $80.00 per month, plus room and board, and was so employed at the time of his death on July 11, 1960. … On this subject, see Loyal’s Auto Exchange v. Munch, 153 Neb. 628 , 45 N.W. 2d 913, 921 (12); Brown v. Kroger Company, Mo.App., 358 S.W.2d 429, 434 ; Brown v. Kroger Company, Mo.Sup., 344 S.W.2d 80 (17); Kaufman v.

Richmond v. Ashcraft

137 Mo. App. 191 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1909

App. 680 ; Sires v. Clark, 112 S. W. 114 ; Brown v. Baldwin, 121 Mo. 106 .] … [Brown v. Baldwin, loc. cit. 125; Hall v. Hall, 30 Vt. 779 , 784; Morris v. Terrell, 2 Rand. (Va.) 6; Cawdor v. Lewis, 1 Younge 9 Coll. 427; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. (17 Ed.), secs. 385, 655, 799 and cases cited.]

Central Parking System of Missouri, LLC v. Tucker Parking Holdings, LLC

519 S.W.3d 485 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2017

Tucker’s argument is centered on its interpretation of the Missouri Supreme Court case Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 776 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1989). … However, the Brown Court did not address the role “knowledge of the facts” plays in an estoppel analysis.

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 .

Arp v. Arp

572 S.W.2d 232 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1978

Defendant cites In Re Marriage of Vanet, 544 S.W.2d 236 (Mo.App.1976); Foster v. Foster, 537 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.App.1976); and Brown v. … C. v. L. C. C., 559 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.App.1977); In Re Marriage of Prenavo, 556 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Mo.App.1977); C_ L_ R_ v.

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.

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.

Heaps v. Jones

23 Mo. App. 617 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1886

Belkin v. Hill, 53 Mo. 492 . … McKelvy ( 30 Mo. 149 ), and Boutell 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).

Estate of Young

185 S.W.3d 767 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2006

See also Cruce v. … In Enright v.

State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Watkins

972 S.W.2d 609 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1998

Brown v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Mo.App.1984). … The rationale for this rule is stated in Wisdom v.

Paris v. Keefhaver

512 S.W.2d 892 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1974

Following these statements is a long line of decisions, culminating in Strickner v. Brown, 491 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.1973). It matters not that plaintiffs’ evidence of damage was un-controverted. … [Liberty Loan Ass’n of Antioch v. Brown, 493 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App.1973)], has chosen not to do so. The judgment will therefore not be disturbed, and Point I is overruled.

Haas v. American Car & Foundry Co.

176 Mo. App. 314 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1913

Justice Cray in Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. … See also 26 Cyc. par. 2, p. 1106. *329 Iii Hach v.

State Ex Rel. Mills v. Turnage

217 Mo. App. 278 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1924

[State ex rel. v. Railway, 199 Mo. App. 668, 672 ; State ex rel. v. Holladay, 65 Mo. 76 ; School District No. 11 v. Lauderbaugh, 80 Mo. 190 .] … [State ex rel. v. Jones, 155 Mo. 570 .]

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.