Case law

Perkins v. Schicker

641 S.W.2d 432 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1982

Our decision in Brooks v. Whaley made the impropriety of the board order res judicata. It did not commence the statute of limitations. … Finally, plaintiffs assert that this case constitutes merely a continuation of Brooks v. Whaley and cite Hasenyager v. Board of Police Commissioners, 606 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.App.1980) in support of their proposition.

McCann Concrete Products, Inc. v. Raineri Construction, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2024

Triarch Indus., Inc. v. … See Brown v. Brown, 530 S.W.3d 35, 40-41 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Our decision to do so here should not be construed as a holding that sub-standard briefing is acceptable—it unequivocally is not. Id.

Kansas City v. Wilhoit

237 S.W.2d 919 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1951

See State v. Sutton, 24 Mo. 377 ; State v. Pemberton, 235 Mo.App. 1128 , 151 S.W.2d 111 . … Leigh v. City of Wichita, 148 Kan. 607 , 83 P.2d 644 , 119 A.L.R. 1503 . See also Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, 113 Mo. 395 , 21 S.W. 8 , 18 L.R.A. 590 ; City of Maplewood v. Provost, Mo.App., 25 S.W.2d 142 .

Bennett v. State

549 S.W.2d 585 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1977

Rule 27.26(j); Brown v. State, 495 S.W.2d 690, 694 [2] (Mo.App.1973). … Movant contends that such statements made mov-ant’s plea involuntary, relying upon State v. Rose, 440 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.1969) and Brown v. State, supra, 495 S.W.2d at 695 .

Duly v. Heflin

873 S.W.2d 932 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1994

Drury Displays, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 832 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Mo.App.1992). … The dissent cites City of Kansas City v.

Frazier v. City of Rockport

199 Mo. App. 80 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1918

In Church v. People, 53 N. … In City of Springfield v.

Vogel v. Hall Implement Co.

551 S.W.2d 922 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 1977

Merriman v. Ben Gutman Truck Service, Incorporated, 392 S.W.2d 292, 296 [1-3] (Mo.1965); Brown v. Missouri *924 Lumber Transports, Inc., 456 S.W.2d 306, 307 (Mo.1970); Slider v. … Brown Shoe Company, 308 S.W.2d 306, 307 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1957); Stegall v. St. Joseph Lead Company, 465 S.W.2d 855, 861 [3] (Mo.App.1971); Saale v.

State Ex Rel. Bushcheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker

34 S.W.3d 410 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2000

Relators Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis (“Board”) and Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., separately filed petitions with this court seeking to prohibit Respondent Judge Evelyn M. … Memphis v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670 , 202 S.W. 7, 14 (1918)(characterizing statute as directory rather than mandatory). 4 . In Armantrout v.

Adkins v. Sutherland Lumber Co.

307 S.W.2d 17 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1957

Summa v. Morgan Real Estate Co., 350 Mo. 205 , 165 S.W.2d 390, 393 ; Harper v. First National Bank, Mo., 196 S.W.2d 265 , 267. In the very recent case of Dixon v. … Summa v. Morgan Real Estate Co., supra; Blackwell v. J. J. Newberry Co., Mo.App., 156 S.W.2d 14 .

State of Missouri, el rel. Attorney General Eric Schmitt v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2022

Holmes v. Steelman, 624 S.W.3d 144, 148 (Mo. banc 2021); see also ITT Com. Fin. Corp. v. Mid.- Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). … Until 2005, SLEF included coverage for the Board as an agency of the State and for SLMPD officers as officers of the State. Holmes, 624 S.W.3d at 149-50; see also Smith v.

City of Kirksville ex rel. Fleming Manufacturing Co. v. Coleman

103 Mo. App. 215 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1903

City to use v. Eddy, 123 Mo. 546 ; Wheeler v. Poplar Bluff, 149 Mo. 36 . … City of Independence v. Briggs, 58 Mo. App. 241 ; City of Marshall v. Rainey, 78 Mo. App. 416 ; Wheeler v. Poplar Bluff, 149 Mo. 36 . A recent opinion written by Judge Goode for the St.

In the Interest of S.M.B.

254 S.W.3d 214 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 22, 2008

That same day, the court appointed attorney Andy Brown to represent Mother. … See Stringer v.

Miller v. Kansas City

157 Mo. App. 533 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 29, 1911

An iron fence ran parallel with» the walk, and there was a large board designated by some of. the witnesses as a “sign board.” … [Fehlhauer v. St. Louis, 178 Mo. 635 ; Dwyer v. Boston, 180 Mass. 381 ; Stoddard v. Winchester, 154 Mass. 148 ; Warsaw v. Dunlap, 112 Ind. 576 ; Theissen v. Belle Plains, 81 Iowa 118 .]

Sullivan Realty & Improvement Co. v. Crockett

158 Mo. App. 573 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1911

An awning which constituted a permanent encroachment upon the street was declared, in Hibbard v. Chicago, 173 Ill. 91 , to be a nuisance per se. In Berry-Horn Coal Co. v. Scruggs-McClure, etc., Co., 62 Mo. … To the same effect, see State ex rel. v. Vandalia, 119 Mo. App. 406 , 94 S. W. 1009 and Emerson v. Babcock, 66 Iowa 257 . See, also, Elliott, Roads and Streets (3 Ed.), secs. 829, 830, 831, 832.

Rollings v. Shipman

341 S.W.3d 777 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 24, 2011

The Board of Equalization denied the application, and the Trustee filed an appeal with the Commission. … Indeed, Matt Brown, Special Assessments Manager for the St.

State Ex Rel. City of Gower v. Gee

573 S.W.2d 107 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1978

State on Information of Dalton v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 365 Mo. 1 , 275 S.W.2d 225, 230 [5] (1955); State ex rel. Askew v. Kopp, 330 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.1960), discussed infra. … Louis County, et al. v. City of Manchester, 360 S.W.2d 638 (Mo. banc 1962) and Appelbaum, et al. v. St. Louis County, 451 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.1970) in their effort to reverse the judgment below.

State v. Churchir

658 S.W.2d 35 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1983

Immediately before the arrest, Huffman observed appellant getting out of a brown automobile and entering a basement apartment. … State v. Hicks, 591 S.W.2d 184, 192 (Mo.App.1979).

State v. Turner

716 S.W.2d 462 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1986

Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737 , 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983). 4 In the present case the officers did not have a search warrant nor did they have the owner’s consent. … Brown, 460 U.S. at 739 , 103 S.Ct. 1541 . 6 . The principles of Miranda only apply to custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Gaar v. Gaar's Inc.

994 S.W.2d 612 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1999

Finally, Lois avowed that as a *618 board member, 9 she never authorized Melton to sign Exhibit 3 on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiffs respond by pointing out that according to Sparks v. … As explained in Mark Century Corp. v.

Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Kansas City

330 S.W.3d 767 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2010

Precision Invs., L.L.C. v. … Similarly, in Veal v.