Case law

Camden County Public Water Supply District 4 v. Village of Sunrise Beach

281 S.W.3d 893 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2009

Gavin v. Gill, 688 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1985), <u. support for this argument. … Joseph v. Village of Country Club, 163 S.W.3d 905, 907 (Mo. banc 2005).

Wilson v. City of St. Joseph

125 Mo. App. 460 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 20, 1907

Joseph, and in the strict obedience to the directions which may from time to time be given by the board of public works or its duly-authorized agents.” … .We have considered all that plaintiff has said in behalf of the judgment and yet find ourselves unable to distinguish the case from that of Burke v. Kansas City, 34 Mo. App. 570 .

State v. Hughes

223 S.W.2d 106 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1949

See State v. … Love v.

Jenkins v. Keller

579 S.W.2d 166 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1979

In Brown v. St. … Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Company, supra, concurring opinion by Storckman, J., at 260; Wilkerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 510 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.App.1974).

Avery v. Mechanics Insurance

222 Mo. App. 467 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1926

family into his house a.t 6501 Brown street which,"'as stated, was not completed. .. … S. 1909; Stevens v. Ins. Co., 120 Mo. App. 88 ; Havens v. Ins. Co., 123 Mo. 403 .]

Fogg v. School District

75 Mo. App. 159 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 1898

Copper v. Mayor, Etc., 44 N. J. L. 634; California v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 15 Cal. 336 ; Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51 ; Grant v. Kidwell, 30 Mo. 455 ; State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 353 ; Shirts v. … On the other hand, Board v. Sinton, 41 Ohio St. 504 , and Branch v. Sinking Fund, 80 Va. 427 , cited by *172 defendant’s counsel seem to conflict with what we understand the law to be.

Cox Chapel School District No. 4 of Atchison County v. Atchison County Superintendent of Schools

429 S.W.2d 348 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1968

The board fixed March 11 as the date for the election of members of the board of education of the new district. … We so held in Lane v.

Reasoner ex rel. Reasoner v. Meyer

766 S.W.2d 161 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1989

The court is required to follow the credibility determination of the Board, and should afford a strong presumption of validity in favor of the Board’s decision. Hanebrink v. … Parker, 506 S.W.2d 455, 457-58 (Mo.App.1974); Conder v. Board of Directors of Windsor School, 567 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Mo.App.1978).

In Re Marriage of Gerhard

34 S.W.3d 305 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 4, 2001

See Rule 84.04(i); Nishwitz v. Blosser, 850 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Mo.App.1993)(interpreting predecessor Rule 84.04(h), Missouri Court Rules (1993)). … See In re Marriage of Powell, 948 S.W.2d 153, 160 (Mo.App.1997); Brown v. Brown, 14 S.W.3d 704 , 708 n. 5 (Mo.App.2000); Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Byers, 17 S.W.3d 166, 167 (Mo.App.2000).

State v. Capraro

291 S.W.3d 364 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2009

State v. Brown, 744 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Mo. banc 1988). … Brown, 744 S.W.2d at 811 (quoting State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173 , 195 S.W.2d 484, 485 (1946)).

Richardson v. City of Marceline

73 Mo. App. 360 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1898

That the boards were old boards, and the stringers old stringers, and that he, the witness, had been a carpenter for thirty years. The next exception saved by appellant to the evidence is where this appears: “ ‘Q. … Maus v. Springfield, 101 Mo. 613 .

City of Belton v. Horton

947 S.W.2d 104 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1997

Rule 30.06(d); State v. Brown, 924 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo.App.1996). Setting out mere abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court does not comply with Rule 30.06. … Rule 30.06(d); State v. Adkins, 800 S.W.2d 28, 32 (Mo.App.1990). When an appellant’s point relied on does not comply with Rule 30.06, he or she has preserved nothing for review. Brown, 924 S.W.2d at 5 ; State v.

State ex rel. Baer v. Campbell

794 S.W.2d 690 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1990

Edmonds v. McNeal, 596 S.W.2d 403, 407 (Mo. banc 1980). … Ewbank v. Sayad, 669 S.W.2d 566, 567 (Mo.App.1984).

Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. v. Manion

297 S.W.2d 31 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1956

Co. v. … .” *37 I11 Slocum 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. Perkins

753 S.W.2d 567 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 10, 1988

In Mathis v. … In United States v. Brown, 466 F.2d 493 (10th Cir.1972), the defendant was convicted of making a false and fictitious statement likely to deceive a gun dealer in the acquisition of a firearm.

Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish v. Hettenbach

303 S.W.3d 591 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2010

Wallace v. Munton, 989 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Mo.App. S.D.1999) (quoting State ex rel. Chassaing v. Mummert, 887 S.W.2d 573, 577 (Mo. banc 1994)). … Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir.1978); Chrispens v. Coastal Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 257 Kan. 745 , 897 P.2d 104, 111 (1995).

Pac-One, Inc. v. Daly

37 S.W.3d 278 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2000

Workers v. Pendergast, 891 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Mo. banc 1995). Initially, taxpayers must appeal Collector's assessment of their property to the Board pursuant to section 138.180. See Nexus Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. … Indus., Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 797 S.W.2d 781 (Mo.App.1990), in support of its contention that an appeal before the Board subject to an appeal to the Commission satisfies section 139.031.3.

Pessin v. State Tax Commission

875 S.W.2d 143 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1994

Louis County, Missouri with reference to the Questover v. … Gullic v. City of Fredericktown, 679 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo.App.1984). Plaintiffs abandoned Count IV which sought review of the Tax Commission ruling in Questover v. Morton where they were not parties.

Division of Employment Security v. Cusumano

785 S.W.2d 310 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1990

Cusumano cites three cases, In re Marriage of Haggard v. Haggard, 585 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. banc 1979), Thummel v. Thummel, 609 S.W.2d 175 (Mo.App.1980), and the consolidated appeal in Division of Employment Security v. … Smith and Division of Employment Security v. Brown, 615 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1981), to support her contention that the trial court’s order denying her Motion to Quash Garnishment is properly appealed.