Case law

Null v. City of Grandview

669 S.W.2d 78 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1984

Sumpter v. City of Moberly, supra, l.c. 363, n. 4. … Louis Teachers Association v. Board of Education, 456 S.W.2d 16, 18 [3, 4] (Mo.1970). The judgment is affirmed. .

Galvin v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen

209 Mo. App. 180 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 23, 1921

In Connelly v. Mutual Benefit Association, 9 L. R. … Froelich v. Musicians M. B. A., 93 Mo.

Summers v. Clayton

500 S.W.2d 28 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1973

In Vaughn v. … In Donnell v.

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).

St. Louis Sanitary Landfill Co. v. Scott

274 S.W.2d 585 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1955

Clark v. Crown Drug Co., 348 Mo. 91, 152 . S.W.2d 145; Missouri Veterinary Medical Ass’n v. Glisan, Mo.App., 230 S.W.2d 169 . … Missouri Veterinary Medical Ass’n v. Glisan, supra.

State ex rel. Smart v. Wilson

99 Mo. App. 675 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 11, 1903

Evans v. Railway, 76 Mo. App. 468 . … Railroad v. Young, 96 Mo. 39 ); and for obtaining a dramshop license (State ex rel. v. County Court, 66 Mo. App. 96 ).

Linkogel v. Baker Protective Services, Inc.

626 S.W.2d 380 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1981

Louis County Board of Police Commissioners. The sheriffs of this state, conversely, are empowered to appoint their deputies by § 57.201.1, RSMo 1978. … Brown v. Briggs, 569 S.W.2d 760, 762 [1] (Mo.App.1978); Mansur v. Lentz, 201 Mo.App. 256 , 211 S.W. 97, 98 [1] (1919).

State v. Hughes

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

See State v. … Love v.

Orders Pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and/or 84.16(b)

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2014

ED99990 ARTHUR REED, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 2. ED99999 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V JASON BIRDNO, APP 3. ED100144 JOSEPH WRIGHT, ET AL, APP V. LIBERTY SURPLUS, RES 4. ED100343 R. … BROWN, RES V CITY OF COTTLEVILLE, APP & DES RES 11. ED100681 CHRISTOPHER BAUER RES V L.E. SAUER MACHINE CO APP

Fleming v. KCKN Broadcasting Co.

241 Mo. App. 148 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1950

Co. v. Jaqua, 66 Ind. App. 113 , 115 N. E. 73 ; Chutter v. Richardson, 113 A. 770 , 80 N. H. 116; Sukonik v. Shapiro, 5 A. (2) 108, 333 Pa. 289 ; Fish v. Vermillion, 70 Kan. 348 , 78 Pac. 811 ; Batty v. … Button, 13 Johns (N.Y.) 18; Scudder v. Johnson, 5 Mo. 551 ; Hobson v. McArthur, 16 U. S. 182 , 10 L. Ed. 930 .

State v. Hardin

229 S.W.3d 211 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2007

Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo.App. W.D.2007). Mr. Hardin’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects. First, Mr. … Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978).

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.

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).

Moore v. City of Parkville

156 S.W.3d 384 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2005

Appellants contend that the case of Murrell v. … taken by the Board.

Off. of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Com'n

326 S.W.3d 868 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2010

Brown v. Wheatley, 306 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). Nonetheless, we have elected to exercise our discretion to entertain OPC's appeal, as we are able to discern the nature of the issues raised by OPC on appeal. … Board of Prob. & Parole, 299 S.W.3d 33 , 36 (Mo.App. W.D.2009).

Parkway School District v. Provaznik

617 S.W.2d 489 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1981

Louis Teachers Association v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 544 S.W.2d 573, 575 [1] (Mo.banc 1976). … Smith v. Consolidated School District No. 2, 408 S.W.2d 50, 53 [3] (Mo.banc 1966); Conder v. Board of Directors of Windsor School, 567 S.W.2d 377, 379 [4] (Mo.App.1978).

Mayer v. Schrumpf

111 Mo. App. 54 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1905

As stated by this court in Gilliland v. Railway Co., 19 Mo. … [Mancuso v. Kansas City, 74 Mo. App. 143 ; Ward v. Fagin, 101 Mo. 672 ; Eyre v.

City of Dexter v. McCollom

58 Mo. App. 450 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 15, 1894

Brown, mayor of the city of Dexter, a city of the fourth class, upon the following complaint: “State of Missouri, h “County of Stoddard, ss“City of Dexter. . Before W. C. Brown, Mayor of the City of Dexter. … “City of Dexter, plaintiff, v. Jesse W. McCollum, and Newton Pardue, defendants. Jesse W. McCollum and Newton Pardue to the city of Dexter, Dr.

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 .

GJRB Ex Rel. RJK v. JKB

269 S.W.3d 546 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2008

In a case with strikingly similar facts, the Eastern District of our court, in Brown v. … Brown, 141 S.W.3d at 82 .