Case law

Nexus Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Nash

747 S.W.2d 683 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1988

In C & D Investment Co. v. … Sperry Corp. v. Wiles, 695 S.W.2d 471, 472-73 (Mo.1985) (en banc). Ordinarily, if the administrative remedy is adequate, it is exclusive. B & D Investment Co., Inc. v. Schneider, 646 S.W.2d 759, 762 (Mo.1983) (en banc).

State v. Moss

637 S.W.2d 350 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1982

State v. Cox, 508 S.W.2d 716, 723 [9] (Mo.App.1974); State v. Dalton, 587 S.W.2d 644, 645 [1] (Mo.App.1979); and State v. Wilson, 320 S.W.2d 525, 527-528 [1—2] (Mo.1959). … State v. Moss, 627 S.W.2d 667 (Mo.App.1982). The judgment is affirmed. All concur.

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)).

Boyles v. Missouri Friends of the Wabash Trace Nature Trail, Inc.

981 S.W.2d 644 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1998

Brown, 152 S.W.2d at 654-655 ; Schuermann, 436 S.W.2d at 668 ; Jordan v. Stallings, 911 S.W.2d 653, 658 (Mo.App. S.D.1995); G.M. Morris Boat Co., Inc. v. Bishop, 631 S.W.2d 84, 88 (Mo.App. S.D.1982). … Brown, 152 S.W.2d at 656 ; Koviak v. Union Elec. Co., 442 S.W.2d 934, 938-939 (Mo.1969); City of Columbia v. Baurichter, 729 S.W.2d 475, 481 (Mo.App. W.D.1987).

Parker v. City of Saint Joseph

167 S.W.3d 219 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2005

Co. v. Mo. Dep’t of Ins., 56 S.W.3d 471, 474 (Mo.App.2001). The propriety of the circuit court’s jurisdiction is “solely an issue of law[,]” which we review de novo. McCoy v. … That issue was addressed in Roberts v. City of St.

Mo-Kan Airport Passenger Service, Inc. v. City of Kansas City

689 S.W.2d 641 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1985

In that case, the counsel was hired by the board and was responsible to it. In Ross v. … In United States v.

State ex rel. Moran v. McNeal

558 S.W.2d 218 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1977

Whatever prejudices may or may not have existed in the old Board based upon individual familiarity with the case, there is no reason to believe such prejudices exist in the present Board. … Under the scope of our review (Rule 73.01 and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976)) we find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.

Kern v. U. Rys. Co. of St. Louis

214 Mo. App. 232 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1924

In Gunn v. … Thereupon decedent attempted to board the car.

Bristol v. Fischel

81 Mo. App. 367 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1899

To this writ the said board made a return certifying to the circuit court the record of all proceedings before said board. … State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 69 Mo. App. 657 . We further know judicially that the time for which he was originally appointed to that office has expired.

St. Louis Rawhide Co. v. Hill

72 Mo. App. 142 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1897

PRonI®¿°sf°ona' board: paroi >ng: admissi. … Chitland v. Ins. Co., 86 Ill. 220 ; Eggman v. Blanke, 40 Mo.

In the Interest of Md

229 S.W.3d 612 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2007

229 S.W.3d 612 (2007) In the Interest of M.D., Plaintiff, Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, Respondent, v. C.N.D. (Mother), Appellant, John Doe, Defendant. No. WD 67421. … Brown, Esq., Timothy D. Tipton, Esq., Co-counsel, Kearney, MO, for Appellant. Gary L. Gardner, Esq., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent. Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., ELLIS and HARDWICK, JJ.

State v. Byrd

423 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2014

State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93, 116 (Mo. banc 2000) (citing State v. Deck, 994 S.W.2d 527, 543 (Mo. banc 1999)). … State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 608 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995)). “[PJlain errors are those which are evident, obvious, and clear.” Id. (citation omitted).

R. L. Gibson & Brother v. Jenkins

97 Mo. App. 27 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1902

Williams v. Railway, 153 Mo. 487 ; Small v. Hatch, 151 Mo. 300 ; Rains v. Lumpee, 80 Mo. App. 203 . … He then *39 cites: Sybert v. Jones, 19 Mo. 86 ; Moore v. Ringo, 82 Mo. 468 ; Musser v. Adler, 86 Mo. 445 ; Cummeskey v. Williams, 20 Mo. App. 606 .

Historic Hermann, Inc. v. Thuli

790 S.W.2d 931 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1990

Eybeg v. Shah, 773 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Mo.App.1989); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Groeper, 691 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Mo.App.1985). … There was no resolution of the Board to specifically ratify or approve the purchase, and no adoption of the contract. Stram v. Miller, supra, 663 S.W.2d at 276 ; Empson v. Missouri Highway & Transp.

Bean v. County Court

33 Mo. App. 635 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1889

The board of aldermen is interdicted from so doing by the organic law of its municipal existence. … State ex rel. v. Nodaway Co. Court, 80 Mo. 601 -609 ; Sheridan v. Flem ing, 93 Mo. 322 -325.

Greenwood v. Director of Revenue

5 S.W.3d 604 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1999

In Brown v. Director, the driver refused to submit to a chemical test and his driver’s license was revoked for one year. … Brown v. Director, 772 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Mo.App.1989).

Norton v. Smith

782 S.W.2d 775 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1989

Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo. banc 1986). … Barthelette v. Sanders, 756 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Mo. banc 1988).

State ex inf. Richeson v. Cummins

114 Mo. App. 93 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1905

In State ex rel. v. Denny, 94 Mo. … [Hoff v. Taylor, 5 N. J. Law 829.]

Peck v. Marcone Appliance Parts Center

721 S.W.2d 762 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1986

Brown v. Weber Implement & Auto Co., 357 Mo. 1, 206 S.W.2d 350, 352 (1947); Smith v. Cook Paint & Varnish Co., 561 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Mo.App.1978); § 287.495, RSMo 1986. … Brown, supra, 206 S.W.2d at 359 .

State v. Norman

178 S.W.3d 556 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2005

Norman cites State v. … In State v. Brown, 750 S.W.2d 139, 142 (Mo.App. E.D.1988), the appellant argued that convictions for both possession and manufacture of marijuana constituted double jeopardy.