Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,907 results
0.26s
Ricketts v. City of Columbia, Mo.
856 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 29, 1993
Brown v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 755 F.2d 668, 671 (8th Cir.1985). … Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).
Cited 5 timesPublished531 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 4, 1982
United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 , 101 S.Ct. 453 , 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980); See also Matthews v. DeCastro, 429 U.S. 181 , 97 S.Ct. 431 , 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976); Weinberger v. … United States Railroad Board v. Fritz, supra, 449 U.S. at 101 S.Ct. at 458-460, 66 L.Ed.2d at 375-377 .
Cited 1 timesPublished351 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 1972
United States v. Burton, 341 F.Supp. 302 (W.D.Mo.1972). … United States v. Jones, 418 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Brotherton, 427 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1970). This position is not novel. In Rosen v.
Cited 8 timesPublished4 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 11, 1933
De Hatre v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 246 , loc. cit. 276, 98 S. W. 744 , 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86. Commissioner v. Bingham (C. C. A.) 35 F. (2d) 503, loc. cit. 504. 3. … In the case of the dividend, it only became available by affirmative act of the board of directors. The fund for its payment had to be appropriated.
Cited 3 timesPublished333 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 16, 1971
Brown v. Kearney (C.A.5) 355 F.2d 199 ; United States v. Hallman (C.A.3) 365 F.2d 289 . … Wilwording v. Swenson, supra; Cox v. Nash (W.D.Mo.) 226 F.Supp. 87 .
Cited 4 timesPublished55 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 24, 1944
In State v. … See, also, United States ex rel. v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13 , 46 S.Ct. 1 , 70 L.Ed. 138 ; Hawk v. Olson, 8 Cir., 130 F.2d 910 ; Palmer v. McCauley, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 300 ; Urquhart v.
Cited 2 timesPublished52 F.2d 269 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 28, 1931
The case of Sweets Company, etc., v. Commissioner, etc. (2 C. C. A.) 40 F. (2d) 436, 438, is in point. … It had been held by the Board of Tax Appeals that, when there has been an affiliation of corporations, the affiliated group is the taxpayer, and that each change in the membership of an affiliated group creates a new taxpayer
Cited 3 timesPublishedCentral Illinois Public Service Co. v. Industrial Oil Tank & Line Cleaning Service
730 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 21, 1990
In United States v. … Indeed, in [U.S. v.]
Cited 15 timesPublished73 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 29, 1947
Such violation consisting of failure to report for induction, failure to execute his questionnaire, failure to execute his occupational questionnaire, and failure to keep the local Selective Service Board No. 12 of Chicago … In Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.
Reversed on other grounds by Jones v. Pescor, 169 F.2d 853 (1948)Cited 2 timesPublished585 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 6, 1983
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … Peck v. Hoff, 660 F.2d 371 (8th Cir.1981).
Cited 2 timesPublishedMurphy v. Kansas City, Missouri
347 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 28, 1972
Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 , 81 S.Ct. 125 , 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960); wealth, e. g., Harper v. Virginia [State] Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S.Ct. 1079 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); tax status, e. g., Kramer v. … See: Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 , 84 S.Ct. 1226 , 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1969); Salsbury v. Maryland, 346 U.S. 545 , 74 S.Ct. 280 , 98 L.Ed. 281 (1954).
Cited 13 timesPublished87 F.R.D. 600 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 1, 1980
See Colston v. Maryland Cup Corp., 18 F.E.P. Cases 83 (D.Md.1978); Droughn v. F.M.C. Corp., 74 F.R.D. 639 (E.D.Pa.1977). … Ass’n. v. Board of Ed. of Portland, 446 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1971).
Cited 3 timesPublished501 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 18, 1980
Under the guidelines of Haines v. … Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785, n. 17 , 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293, n. 17 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975).
Cited 0 timesPublishedCartwright Van Lines, Inc. v. United States
373 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 9, 1973
Aero-Mayflower Transit Company, Inc. v. United States et al., 208 F.Supp. 303, 306 (S.D.Cal.1962), citing with approval Miss. Valley Barge Line Co. v. … MC-F-10106, was denied by the Commission’s Review Board No. 5 on January 14, 1969.
Cited 1 timesPublishedLevitt v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
250 F. Supp. 3d 383 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 13, 2017
See, e.g., Mahanna v. U.S. … (applying Missouri law); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 1999 WL 33944680 , at * 13 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 1999) (“Plaintiffs claims do not clearly qualify as continuing torts.
Cited 1 timesPublished231 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 15, 1964
“Very truly yours, “Lester V. … Estate of Sanford v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedMcNamara v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 5, 2019
Plaintiff argues that under Williams v. Preman, 911 S.W.2d 288, 297 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Klemme v. … Browne’s opinion that relies on the standard set forth in SKMDV and Nail must be excluded.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHorowitz v. CURATORS OF U. OF MISSOURI
447 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Nov 12, 1975
In the landmark case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5 Cir. 1961), students were expelled apparently for engaging in lunch-counter demonstrations. … of Regents v.
Cited 0 timesPublished4 F.R.D. 257 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jan 30, 1945
In this cause, as ,in Laffoon v. I. M. … Plaintiff contends that the effect of Neirbo Co. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedLa Von Lanigan v. Bartlett and Co. Grain
466 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Mar 28, 1979
See, e. g., Knott v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 527 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975); Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1977); Earwood v. … The phrase was coined by Judge Brown in his dissent to the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc in Phillips v.
Cited 8 timesPublished
Ask Donna