Case law

Rockenfield v. Missouri Department of Corrections & Human Resources

740 S.W.2d 230 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1987

See City of Cabool v. Missouri State Board of Mediation, 689 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo. banc 1985), and Stephenson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway and Transportation Commission, 666 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Mo.App.1984). … See Perez v. Webb, 533 S.W.2d 650, 654-55 (Mo.App.1976).

Guffey v. Center for Women in Transition, Inc.

308 S.W.3d 302 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2010

Claimant reported to Nancy Kelley (“Kelley”), who, as executive director, also was a member of the board of directors (“the board”). On December 2, 2008, the board voted to eliminate Claimant’s position. … In Webb v. Labor and Indus. Relations Com’n of Missouri, Div. of Employment Sec., 674 S.W.2d 672, 673-74 (Mo.App.

Townsend v. Townsend

713 S.W.2d 302 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1986

Owsley v. Owsley, 693 S.W.2d 897, 898 [2, 3] (Mo.App.1985). … Brown v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 167, 171 [2-4] (Mo.App.1984). In the present case, there was no specific finding that husband was able to pay or had intentionally and contumaciously rendered himself unable to pay.

First Missionary Baptist Church of Ballwin v. Rollins

151 S.W.3d 846 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2004

ITT Commercial Finance v. Mid-Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). “Our review is essentially de novo.” Id. … Wall USA, Inc. v. City of Ballwin, 53 S.W.3d 168, 172 (Mo.App.E.D.2001).

State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Jacob

887 S.W.2d 661 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 1994

Roach v. West Wabash Constr., Inc., 838 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Mo.App.1992). … See Union Electric Co. v. Saale, 377 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Mo.1964).

Wildflower Community Ass'n v. Rinderknecht

25 S.W.3d 530 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 2000

At the Wildflower Community Association Board meeting held July 12, 1996, the Board denied the Rinderknechts’ request to construct a driveway across the common area. … Lance v. Lance, 979 S.W.2d 245, 248 (Mo.App.1998).

Cimasi v. City of Fenton

659 S.W.2d 532 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1983

Whereas, in the instant case, only four members of the ten member board testified, and the trial court found their testimony to be vague, uncertain, and lacking the necessary credibility. See Briggs v. … Our Supreme Court in Hann v.

Litson v. Smith

68 Mo. App. 397 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1897

Lock v. New Orleans, 4 Wall. 172 . An act for the better security of mechanics was applicable where the work was done after the act took effect, though the contract was entered into before its passage. Miller v. … There is no question of vested rights in this case, as in Leete v. Bank, 115 Mo. 184 , so that the reasoning of that case is inapplicable here. Nor do we think that Thompson v.

Messick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

924 S.W.2d 620 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1996

Mes-sick wanted to testify that he heard someone tell Conductor Brown, “Okay, Joe, a couple of days ago we had the same problem. It took all three personnel to throw the switch.” … Plain error review is granted sparingly, Moore v. Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc., 892 S.W.2d 696, 710 (Mo.App.1994), and rarely applied in civil cases. Robertson v. Cameron Mut. Ins.

Rouse Co. of Missouri v. Justin's, Inc.

883 S.W.2d 525 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1994

The deputy sheriff served the summons on Carmen Brown, the manager on duty at the business in Union Station. … Brown v. Wilson, 348 Mo. 658 , 155 S.W.2d 176, 180 [13-15] (1941). Here, respondent’s petition, titled “Affidavit and Complaint for Rent and Possession,” is a one-count claim for rent.

Cooper v. Henry County Commission

529 S.W.3d 343 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2017

Henry County billed the Township Road Board for this repair work and then paid the cost of the repairs out of the gas tax money the county pays annually to the Road Board without anyone on the Road Board’s knowledge. … Ass’n v. Mo. State Bd. of Educ., 34 S.W.3d 266, 275 (Mo. App. 2000).

Williams v. Thomas

961 S.W.2d 869 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 1998

Clark v. Beverly Enterprises-Missouri, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Mo.App.1994) (quoting Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471 , 427 A.2d 385, 388 (1980)). [Footnotes omitted.] Olinger v. … Clark v.

Campbell Glass & Paint Co. v. Davis-Page Planing Mill Co.

130 Mo. App. 474 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 4, 1908

In Gantner v. … [Goetz v. Piel, 26 Mo. App. 684 ; McCune v. Belt, 45 Mo. 174 ; Brown v. Brown, 124 Mo. 79 ; Lumber Co. v. Christophel, 59 Mo. App. 80 .]

Smith v. State

741 S.W.2d 727 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1987

Hess v. State, 531 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Mo.App.1975). 3. … Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973); Reiter v. Camp, 518 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo.App.1974).

Medley v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

672 S.W.2d 169 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 9, 1984

There is no specific statutory requirement of a formal charge or board hearing for discipline other than removal. In Hughes v. … Pursuant to § 43.150 and the right to appeal under Patrol General Order V-16-104 the superintendent selected and appointed a five-man board, to determine whether the charges were founded and if the proposed disciplinary punishment

Patterson v. Missouri Glass Co.

72 Mo. App. 492 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1897

Mechem on Agency, sec. 469; Story on Agency, sec. 211; affirmed in Murdoch v. Milner, 84 Mo. loc. cit. 102, 103. … in the board company.

Thummel v. Thummel

609 S.W.2d 175 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1980

Pollock v. Brown, 569 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. banc 1978) also infers that the account must be in the name of the depositor and the other tenant to qualify as a statutory joint tenancy. … Baker v. Riss International Corporation, 573 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. App.1978); Household Finance Corporation v. Seigei-Robert Plating Company, 483 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.App.1972); Or f v.

Lanham v. Missouri Department of Corrections

232 S.W.3d 630 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2007

Midwest Arbitration and Mediation, Inc. v. Condry, 17 S.W.3d 147, 149 (Mo.App. S.D.2000). Further, a litigant appearing pro se is bound by the same rules of procedure as attorneys. Lane v. … In Missouri Inmates v.

Crow v. Williams

104 Mo. App. 451 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1904

Hadley v. Bernero, 97 Mo. App. 314 ; Hulett v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 131 ; Keary v. Baker, 33 Mo. 603 . … Neenam v. City of St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 89 ; Hadley v. Bernero, 97 Mo. App. 314 ; Patterson v. Yancey, 97 Mo. App. 681 ; Christopher, etc., Co., v. Kelly, 91 Mo. App. 93 .

Kaiser v. St. Louis Transit Co.

108 Mo. App. 708 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1904

Brosman v. Sweetser, 127 Ind. 1 ; Varnham v. Council Bluffs, 52 Iowa 698 ; Railroad v. Holman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 16 ; Crouse v. Railroad, 102 Wis. 196 ; Copithorle v. Hardy, 173 Mass. 100 . … In Smith v. St.