Case law

Atteberry v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

193 S.W.3d 444 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2006

Elton v. Davis, 123 S.W.3d 205, 214 (Mo.App. … Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001)).

Blue Ridge Bank v. State Banking Board

509 S.W.2d 763 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 6, 1974

Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589 , 103 S.W. 1078, 1082 [1] (banc 1907); State ex rel. Toliver v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 360 Mo. 671 , 230 S.W.2d 724, 730 [8] (1950). … We are required to view the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the Board [St. Louis County v.

Vernor v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

934 S.W.2d 13 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1996

Vernor filed a petition for declaratory *14 judgment seeking the circuit court’s declaration that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s extension of his conditional release date was illegal and void. … Wilson v. Unistrut Service Company of St. Louis, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 729, 781 (Mo.App.1993). In most instances, a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute an adjudication on the merits. Siampos v.

Cunningham v. Board of Aldermen of Overland

691 S.W.2d 464 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 14, 1985

Relying on Walmer Investment Co. v. … In Coots v. J. A.

Brown Instrument Co. v. Universal Brick & Tile Co.

212 Mo. App. 462 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1923

If the material is not satisfactory to us it may be returned within sixty days from receipt thereof, and no extension of said trial period shall be binding on The Brown Instrument Company, unless first authorized by it in … In the event that the material is not accepted by us we agree to properly pack and return material to The Brown Instrument Company.

Reeves v. Mo Board of Probation & Parole

509 S.W.3d 128 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2016

Appellant appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for declaratory judgment seeking review of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s (“Respondent”) cancellation of his conditional release date.

Welty v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

759 S.W.2d 295 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1988

See State v. Pollock, 735 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Mo.App.1987); State v. O’Neal, 651 S.W. 2d 634, 636 (Mo.App.1983). … “The assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter for the board [trier of fact] hearing the testimony, and on review an appellate court must defer to its findings in that regard.” Ross v.

Brown v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.

135 Mo. App. 624 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1909

[Clark v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 440 ; Lupe v. Railroad, 3 Mo. App. 77 ; Heil v. Railroad, 16 Mo. App. 363 .] … [The Westminster, 116 Fed. 123 ; Nordlinger v. United States, 127 Fed. 680, 683 ; Hatch v. Railroad, 107 N. W. 1087 .]

Wheat v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

932 S.W.2d 835 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1996

As the Board notes, where a preliminary writ is denied, the petitioner may not appeal but must file for the writ anew in the next highest court. Williams v. Gammon, 912 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App.1995). … Schaefer v. Cleveland, 847 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Mo.App.1992).

Karen Carpenter v. State Board of Nursing

508 S.W.3d 110 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 2016

V, sec. 10. … In Farrar v.

Jones v. Board of Police Commissioners

896 S.W.2d 655 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1995

*656 ORDER PER CURIAM: Erwin Jones appeals from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners revoking Jones’ commission to work as a private security officer. … Jones contends that, under § 561.016 RSMo 1994, the Board was required to consider his application for a commission, even though he had several pri- or convictions of serious felonies. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

DANNY R. BROWN and DIANA BROWN, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

572 S.W.3d 154 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2019

, analyzed, and distinguished Manner v. … The Browns’ ambiguity argument here is built upon Manner and Ritchie and, in addition, Chamness v. American Family Mut. Ins.

Henning v. Board of Election Commissioners

787 S.W.2d 742 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1989

Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co., 771 S.W.2d 922, 924 [1,2] (Mo.App.1989). On December 1, 1988, the St. … Gilroy-Sims and Associates v. City of St. Louis, 697 S.W.2d 567, 569 [1,2] (Mo.App.1985).

Herzig v. Board of Police Commissioners

858 S.W.2d 298 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1993

Cooper v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

866 S.W.2d 135 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 23, 1993

Gale v. Moore, 763 F.2d 341, 343 (8th Cir.1985); see also Berdella v. Pender, 821 S.W.2d 846, 851 (Mo. banc 1991). … . *139 V. There is no issue of material fact. The parole board and the individual defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the summary judgment. All concur.

McBride v. Board of Election Commissioners

945 S.W.2d 622 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 20, 1997

Van Kirk v. Board of Police Commissioners

586 S.W.2d 350 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 11, 1979

Christy v. Petrus, 365 Mo. 1187 , 295 5.W.2d 122, 124 (Mo. banc 1956); Williams v. Jones, 562 S.W.2d 391, 395 [4, 5] (Mo.App.1978); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. … Because his service is during the pleasure of the board, he has no eonstitu-tionally protected right to the office. The Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, supra; Christy v. Petrus, supra; Bishop v.

Walls v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

480 S.W.3d 454 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2016

Order Per Curiam William Walls appeals the judgment in favor of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”) on his petition for relief, under Rule 74.06(b)(5), from a prior declaratory judgment, which denied Walls

Sims v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

502 S.W.3d 37 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2016

Kenya Walzer v. Missouri Board of Nursing

Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2024

V, § 18. … Our standard of review for the Board’s findings, however, does not require that the Board foreclose every possible alternative interpretation of the evidence. See Geen v. Mo.