Case law

Niekamp v. United States

240 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 1965

They contend under the reasoning of Lang v. … See Kuhn v. United States, 3 Cir., 258 F.2d 840 ; Andress v. United States, D.C., 198 F.Supp. 371 ; Jackson v. United States, 3 A.F.T.R.2d 517 .

McGee v. Adams

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2023

He does not, however, take issue with the Parole Board’s process or lack of process for determining the violation. Rather, petitioner argues that his pending criminal case, State v. … See Romano v. Wyrick, 681 F.2d 555, 556-57 (8th Cir. 1982); see also Brown v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 727 F. Supp. 524, 531 (W.D. Mo. 1989).

CS EX REL. SCOTT v. Missouri

670 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 8, 2009

Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022 , 1026 (8th Cir.2003). … A suit against a state Board of Education or Departments of Education is also an action against the state. Cf. Robinson v.

King v. Hampton

327 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 22, 1971

See also Gnotta v. United States, 415 F.2d 1271 (8 Cir. 1969). … Vigil v. Post Office Department of the United States, 406 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1969); Taylor v. United States Civil Service Commission, 374 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1967).

Draper v. City of St. Louis

92 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 17, 1950

See Morris v. Williams, 149 F.2d 703 . Plaintiffs base their position on Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L. Ed. 497 . … Eor swimming pool cases see Lopez v. Seccombe, D. C., 71 F.Supp. 769 ; Lawrence v. Hancock, D. C., 76 F.Supp. 1004 . For a golf course case see Law v. City of Baltimore, D. C., 78 F.Supp. 346 .

Holbrook v. Moore

293 F. 264 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 8, 1921

But at this time the credit to come to him was finally settled upon and segregated .by an order of the board. [2] It may be said, since only two members of the board (in addition to plaintiff himself) acquiesced in this, … I am led to the conclusion that I have reached largely by the case of Jackson v. Smietanka (D.

Romero v. United States

865 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 5, 1994

See Opinion, filed May 2, 1994, pp. 590-91; see also Brown v. Kneibert Clinic, 871 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo.Ct.App.1993). … Northcross v. Board of Education, 611 F.2d 624, 639 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 911 , 100 S.Ct. 2999 , 3000, 64 L.Ed.2d 862 (1980), and are not recoverable under Rule 54(d) or 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (1).

Zeperink v. Card

11 F. 295 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 24, 1882

C. on appeal, 6 Blatchf. 292 ; Treadwell v. Holloway, 46 Cal. 547 ; Meador v. Sharpe, 54 Ga. 125 ; Jones v. Russell, 44 Ga. 460 ; Whitaker v. Chapman, 3 Lans. 155 ; Lemcke v. Booth, 47 Mo. 385 ; Banning v. … Ann. 257 ; Brown v. Garrard, 28 La. Ann. 870 . The negative of the proposition has been mentioned in the following, among other cases, viz.: Cronan v. Colting, 104 Mass. 248 ; Grover & Baker S. M. Co. v. Clinton, 8 N.

Lindsay v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation

352 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 30, 1972

LINDSAY, Executrix of the Estate of John Douglas Lindsay, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant. No. 68 C 354(1). United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D. … Board members consider the latter as most possible.

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Ass'n v. Ozark Air Lines, Inc.

458 F. Supp. 170 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 13, 1978

Mistletoe Express Service v. Motor Expressmen's Union, 566 F.2d 692, 694 *172 (10th Cir. 1977). See also Monongahela Power Company v. Local No. 2332, etc., 566 F.2d 1196 (4th Cir. 1976); Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. … Cf., International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No. 9 v.

Doss v. United States

476 F. Supp. 630 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 27, 1979

United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 153 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 , 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963); Brown v. United States, 419 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1969). … Steele v. Woods, 327 S.W.2d 187, 196 (Mo.1959). See also Brown v. United States, supra ; Fisher v. Wilkinson, 382 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Mo.1964); Rauschelbach v. Benincasa, 372 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo.1963); Williams v.

Anderson Motor Service v. United States

151 F. Supp. 577 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 27, 1957

Paul Brown, of Heneghan, Roberts & Cole, St. Louis, Mo., and Homer Carpenter, Washington, D. C., for intervener Federal Express, Inc. Before JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge, and MOORE and HARPER, District Judges. … Ed. 1260 ; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. U. S., 307 U.S. 125 -139, 59 S.Ct. 754 , 83 L.Ed. 1147 ; Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U. S. 474 -488, 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 .

Church v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd.

643 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 1986

See, Roettig v. Lindsay, at 637 quoting Nicklaus v. Hughes Tool Co., 417 F.2d 983, 986 (8th Cir.1969); Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 53 F.Supp. 588 (D.Mo.1944); Blevins v. Cushman Motors, supra . … McGowne v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 672 F.2d 652, 660 (8th Cir.1982); Griggs, supra; Frazier v. Materials Transp. Co., 609 F.Supp. 933, 935 (D.Pa.1985); Duke v.

Duffel v. Union Pacific Railroad

937 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Dec 21, 1995

the Public Law Board has declared that Defendant has no right to order its employees who receive a regular annuity from the Railroad Retirement Board to undergo physical examinations. … Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2847 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1982) (emphasis in original).

A.J. ex rel. Dixon v. Tanksley

94 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 3, 2015

In the original complaint, plaintiffs brought additional claims — Counts IV and V — against the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. … The Court found plaintiffs had failed to state a claim in Counts IV and V, and the Police Board Defendants were dismissed from this suit. .

Sexton v. City of Hannibal

832 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 27, 2011

He also asserts that the claim fails because it was the HCVB board, not him, that fired Sexton. … See Thomas v.

Weber v. Salyer

911 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 11, 1996

See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 529-30 (2d Cir.1993). Defendant, acting as an administrative judge employed by the board, was acting in a judicial capacity when he adjudicated plaintiffs appeals. … See Supreme Court of Virginia v.

Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau

532 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 10, 1981

Finally, in Parker v. … Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 , 75 S.Ct. 461 , 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955).

Greater St. Louis Health Systems Agcy. v. Teasdale

506 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 30, 1980

North Carolina v. Califano, supra ; Goodin v. State ex Rel. Okl. Welfare Com'n, supra . … Hagans v. Lavine, supra . In United Mine Workers v.

Wilken v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO., INC.

573 F. Supp. 71 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 17, 1983

573 F.Supp. 71 (1983) William V. WILKEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO., INC., etc., et al., Defendants. No. 82-0145C(3). United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E.D. … Neither of the two named plaintiffs has ever received an award from the Workers' Compensation Board. Consequently, no offset has been made.