Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersMO

10,000+ results

3.95s

  • Brummell v. Harris

    162 Mo. 397 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 14, 1901

    [Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Red. 726; Archer v. Helm, 69 Miss. 730 ; Meyers v. Johnson, 15 Ind. 261 ; Robinson v. Corn, 5 Ky. 125 ; Smith v. Stewart, 7 Ky. Law Rep. 287 ; Gwynn v. Schwartz, 32 W. Va. 487 ; Teass v. … Va. 1 ; Allen v. Reed, 51 Cal. 362 ; Williams v. Montgomery, 16 Hun. 50 ; Atchison v. Pease, 96 Mo. 566 ; Smith v. McCorkle, 105 Mo. 135 ; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 273 ; Major’s Heirs v. Rice, 57 Mo. 384 ; Jacobs v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Missouri Board for Architects Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors v. Earth Resources Engineering, Inc.

    820 S.W.2d 505 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1991

    Lee v. Osage Ridge Winery, 727 S.W.2d 218, 224 (Mo.App.1987). … American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lacy, 1991 WL 137332 (Mo.App.1991) [WD# 43112]. As the Supreme Court of Missouri noted in St. Charles County v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Rose v. Job

    205 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 11, 1907

    Brown, Robert Laffoon, William Edelen, E. D. … As was said in Mason v.

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Jost v. City of Des Peres Board of Adjustment

    978 S.W.2d 350 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 19, 1998

    (Barsanti), appeals from judgment entered by the trial court reversing a decision of the Board of Adjustment (Board) of the City of Des Peres (City) in favor of State of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob Jost, et al. … Nevertheless, on appeal, Barsanti contends the court erred *351 in: (1) denying the post-judgment motion to intervene after the court reversed the decision of the Board; and (2) reversing the Board’s affirmation of City’s

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Smith v. Richardson

    77 Mo. App. 422 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1898

    Cass Co. v. Oldham, 75 Mo. 50 ; Martin v. Nixon, 92 Mo. 26 ; Bank v. Gay, 114 Mo. 203 ; Bank v. Love, 62 Mo. App. 378 ; Napa Valley Wire Co. v. Rinehart, 42 Mo. App. 171 ; Murdock v. Lewis, 26 Mo. … Smith, 117 Mo. 261 ; Sparks v. The Dispatch Trans. Co., 104 Mo. 531 ; Lysaght v. St. Louis Operative Stone Masons’ Ass’n, 55 Mo. App. loc. cit. 547; Winscott v. Inv. Co., 63 Mo. App. 367 ; Grohmann v. Brown, 68 Mo.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Opinion No. (2008)

    Missouri Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2008

    Dear Secretary Carnahan: This opinion letter responds to your request dated February 15, 2008, for our review under Section 116.332 , RSMo, of the sufficiency as to form of an initiative petition, submitted by Theodis Brown … Louis Board of Police Commissioners. We conclude that the petition must be rejected for the following reasons: 1. The petition is not in the form prescribed by Section 116.040 , RSMo 2000. 2.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Brown v. Kansas City Police Department

    District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jan 17, 2024

    Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588–89 (1986). … See Magee v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Brown v. Kansas City Police Department

    District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jan 17, 2024

    Thomas v. … Brown does not dispute the BOPC’s arguments concerning timeliness, so these arguments are waived. Satcher v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

    278 Mo. 205 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 19, 1919

    [Crecelius v. Railroad, 274 671. Glasse v. King, 195 S. W. 521 ; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. l. c. 532; Brown v. Chaney, 256 Mo. l. c. 225; Ranck v. Wickwire, 255 Mo. l. c. 56; Buttron v. … Louis, v. Calhoun, 222 Mo. l. c. 55; St. Louis v. Lawton, 189 Mo. l. c. 485; St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. l. c. 567; St. Louis v. Wetzel, 110 Mo. l. c. 265.]

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Wimberly v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri

    688 S.W.2d 344 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 30, 1985

    Relying on Brown v. … Atkins v. Missouri State Board of Accountancy, 351 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1961); McElvain v. St.

    Superseded by statute, as recognized in Smith v. Dixie Fuel Co.Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Tyler v. Wells

    57 Mo. 472 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1874

    Brown, and followed the decision of the board in regard to quantity ; but the survey was set aside and a new survey made, conforming it to Soulard’s survey, and upon this new survey a patent issued to Labeaume in 1852. … Cochran ( 17 How., 412 ): “ In 1810, the board of commissioners confirmed the grant to Labeaume, according to Sonlard’s survey.”

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • State Ex Rel. Walker v. Locust Creek Drainage District

    228 Mo. App. 434 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1934

    [Cole v. … Speck v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Taylor v. Chapman

    927 S.W.2d 542 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1996

    Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Mo.banc 1993). … Brown v. Kneibert Clinic, 871 S.W.2d 2 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). A plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction for the same injury. Walihan v. St. Louis-Clayton Orthopedic Group, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Mo.App.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Opinion No. (1986)

    Missouri Attorney General Reports · Oct 20, 1986

    See State v. Sweeney, 701 S.W.2d 420 , 423 (Mo. banc 1985); Brown Group, Inc. v. Administrative Hearing Commission, 649 S.W.2d 874 , 881 (Mo. banc 1983). … Bartley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 649 S.W.2d 864 , 867 (Mo. banc 1983); City of Kirkwood v. Allen, 399 S.W.2d 30 , 34 (Mo. banc 1966).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gillmore v. Ring Construction Co.

    227 Mo. App. 1217 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 22, 1933

    This ruling is made upon the authority of Keithley v. Stone Webster Engineering Corporation, 49 S. W. (2d) 296 , and Hager v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 17 S. … [Keithley v. Stone Webster Engineering Corporation, 49 S. W. (2d) 296 , and Hager v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 17 S. W. (2d) 578 .]

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Public Schools of Stoddard County v. Crumb

    157 Mo. 545 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 30, 1900

    [Sturgeon v. Hampton, 88 Mo. l. c. 213; State ex rel. v. Hays, 52 Mo. 578 ; Browne’s Appeal, 69 Mo. App. 159 ; Keating v. Kansas City, 84 Mo. 415 ; Thomson v. Boonville, 61 Mo. 282 ; St. Louis to use v. … [Kearney v. Woodson, 4 Mo. 114 ; Hall v. Harrison, 21 Mo. 227 ; Bowling v. McFarland, 38 Mo. 465 ; Peake v. Bell, 65 Mo. 224 ; Moore v. Dixon, 50 Mo. 425 ; Vaughan v. Daniels, 98 Mo. 230 ; State ex rel. v.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Brown v. Kansas City Police Department

    District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jun 6, 2023

    Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). … DeWit v. Firstar Corp., 904 F. Supp. 1476, 1496 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Prop.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • White v. CW Brown Holdings LLC

    District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 21, 2023

    Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111 (1992). … Bryant v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 919 F.3d 520, 529 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 805 (8th Cir. 2018)).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Stein v. McDonald

    394 S.W.2d 297 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 13, 1965

    Schmidt v. … Highfill v. Brown, supra, loc. cit. 664 [11], The order granting a new trial is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment for defendants. BARRETT and STOCKARD, CC, concur. PER CURIAM.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Board of Education of Bowling Green School District R-I v. Harness

    338 S.W.2d 808 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 12, 1960

    Goyette v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., Mo., 37 S.W.2d 552 , 555; A. P. Nolan Grading & Const. Co. v. Schilling, Mo.App., 293 S.W. 79 . … Empire District Electric Co. v. Johnston, supra; State ex rel. Chariton River Dr. Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283, 287 ; School District of Clayton v. Kelsey, 355 Mo. 478, 486 , 196 S.W.2d 860, 864 .

    Cited 1 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.