Case law

Weaver v. African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc.

54 S.W.3d 575 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

Thus, in Hutchison v. … The parties agreed that the claims against AME, Bishop Byrd and the Board of Incorpo-rators would be collectively submitted against AME. 7 .

Royal Meat Products Co. v. Kansas City, Mo.

240 Mo. App. 688 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1948

Lamm v. Mid-State Serum Company, 265 S.W. 878 , l.c. 879. The board found that the zoning ordinance of 1941 was being violated as follows: "7. … Voorhees v. Faust, 189 N.W. 1006 , l.c. 1007.

Commerce Trust Co. v. Lot Co. and Johnson

208 Mo. App. 261 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1921

[Farrar v. City of St. Louis, 80 Mo. 379 ; Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 259 ; *265 Adams v. Lindell, 5 Mo. App. 197 ; Adams v. Lindell, 72 Mo. 198 .] The word “assessment” is used in more than one sense. … by said Board.”

State Ex Rel. v. Hill

212 Mo. App. 173 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 25, 1923

[State ex rel. v. Dawson, 284 Mo. 490 , 225 S.W. 97 ; Elsberry Drainage District v. Meyers, 284 Mo. 490 , 209 S.W. 913 ; Pemiscot County v. McCarty, 276 Mo. l.c. 537 , 538 , 208 S.W. 450 ; State ex rel. … Co. v. Hughes, ___ Mo. ___, 240 S.W. 802 , l.c. 805, Col. 2; State ex inf. McAllister v.

Hutchinson v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co.

721 S.W.2d 158 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1986

Brown v. Griesedieck Western Brewing Co., 250 S.W.2d 803, 809 [2] (Mo.App.1952); Williams v. International Shoe Co., 213 S.W.2d 657 , 662[6] (Mo.App.1948); Driemeyer v. … In Wynn v.

State v. Fisher

504 S.W.2d 281 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1973

Instructions No. 6 and 7, permitting the jury, after determining defendant’s guilt, to defer assessment of his punishment to the court, are free of error under State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805 (Mo. banc 1969). … See also the following cases subscribing to the rule laid down in Brown: State v. Rand, 496 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.App.1973); State v. Bolden, 494 S.W.2d 61 (Mo.1973); State v. Daugherty, 484 S.W.2d 236 (Mo.1972); State v.

Samuels v. Illinois Fire Insurance Company

354 S.W.2d 352 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1962

It was plaintiffs’ testimony that soon after the fire they cleaned up the debris and boarded up the windows and doors, but that shortly after August 1,1959, they discovered that the boards had been removed and that all the … Raymond, Missouri Instructions, Sec. 132; Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 334 Mo.Sup. 517, 66 S.W.2d 903 .

Morgan v. Morgan

289 S.W.2d 151 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1956

Highway 60 in Fisk, Butler County, Missouri, between an automobile then being driven by defendant, in which plaintiff was riding, -and an automobile driven by one Geneva Joyce Brown. … Little v. Browning, 287 Mo. 278, 282 , 230 S.W. 92, 93 (3); Reineman v. Larkin, 222 Mo. 156, 172 , 121 S.W. 307, 311 (9); Townsend v. Cox, 45 Mo. 401 , *153 403-404; Olsen v.

Plummer v. City of Milan

79 Mo. App. 439 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1899

Jones v. Packet Co., 43 Mo. App. 398 . … Boland v. City of Kansas, 32 Mo. App. 8 ; Bassett v. St. Joseph, 53 Mo. 303 ; Loewer v. Sedalia, 77 Mo. 444 . This instruction was properly refused.

State Ex Rel. Mayfield v. City of Joplin

485 S.W.2d 473 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1972

Mayfield appealed his dismissal to the personnel board. For reasons not apparent of record, the board delayed a hearing on Sgt. … Continental Oil Company v. Waddill, Mo., 318 S.W.2d 281, 285 [1]; State ex rel. Toliver v. Board of Education of City of St.

Dwayne Miller v. Missouri Department of Corrections

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 2014

Section 217.690 “creates no justifiable expectation of release, giving the Board „almost unlimited discretion‟ in whether to grant parole release.” State ex rel. Cavallaro v. Groose, 908 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Mo. … Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Mo. banc 2010). An inmate has “no right of conditional release until the board actually issues a date for conditional release.”

Rickard ex rel. Rickard v. Pratt

459 S.W.2d 13 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 1970

Basler v. Huck, Mo.App., 435 S.W.2d 742 ; Walker v. Massey, Mo.App., 417 S.W.2d 14 . … We are cited to Laws v.

Kohrs v. Quick

264 S.W.3d 645 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

The Verification Board of the Board of Election Commissioners of Clay County certified those results on August 9, 2006. A day before the general election, Mr. … Gerrard v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 913 S.W.2d 88, 89 (Mo.App. E.D.1995).

Lowenstein v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

110 Mo. App. 686 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1905

or boards on the inside of the rails between its said track at said point and on the outside thereof at said places, and had carelessly and negligently filled in between said boards and in the middle and center of its track … [Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 64 ; McCarty v. Hotel Co., 144 Mo. 397, 402 ; Cunningham v. Journal Co., 95 Mo. App. 47 ; Garven v. Railroad, 100 Mo.

Martin v. Modern Woodmen of America

158 Mo. App. 468 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1911

[Frame v. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, 67 Mo. App. 127 .] When the contingency occurred, the obligation was binding and absolute, and the sum presently due. [Brown v. … Co. v. Crayton, 209 Ill. 550 ; Brown v. Assurance Co., supra; Hellier v.

Lake Saint Louis Community Association v. Kamper

503 S.W.2d 447 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1973

Gibbs v. Cass, 431 S.W.2d 662, 668 [1] (Mo.App.1968); Minton v. Lichtenstein, 487 S.W.2d 43, 46 [4] (Mo.App.1972). … Minton v.

State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Warner

361 S.W.2d 159 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1962

Contemporary Homes, Mo.App., 311 S.W. 2d 117, 122 ; Beeler v. Board of Adjustment of City of Joplin, Mo.App., 298 S.W.2d 481, 483 (2). … Brown v. Thomas, Mo.App., 316 S.W.2d 234, 237 (9); Bartlett v. Hume-Sinclair Coal Mining Co., Mo.App., 351 S.W.2d 214, 217 (5); Smith v. Aldridge, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 532, 539 .

Fidler v. Personnel Committee ex rel. City of Raytown

766 S.W.2d 158 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1989

The Missouri Supreme Court has held in numerous cases exemplified by City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 1252 , 206 S.W.2d 539, 546 (banc 1947), and more recently in Sumpter v. … In the case of Tietjens v. City of St.

Porter v. Lake Waukomis Ass'n

687 S.W.2d 237 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 8, 1985

In Kawin v. Chrysler Corp., 636 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Mo. banc 1982), the court stated: The term “replace”, [with new parts] given its plain and ordinary construction, means to supplant with a substitute or equivalent. … The board lost its attempt to enforce its interpretation of its restrictions against Porter. It is settled *240 that attorney fees in such circumstances may be awarded only when the suit is successful. Porter v.

Willis v. City of Browning

161 Mo. App. 461 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1912

[Bailey v. Kansas City, 189 Mo. 503 ; Woods v. Poplar Bluff, 136 Mo. App. 155 ; Miller v. Canton, 123 Mo. App. 325 .] But where it is admitted for some other purpose it may be proper. … [Hatfield v. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 130 ; Felsch v. Babb, 72 Neb. 736 .]