Case law

Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. Graham

48 Mo. App. 638 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1892

That view was affirmed in Ellington v. Moore, 17 Mo. 424 , and again in Chariton Co. v. … The plaintiff’s own evidence shows that, during the month of November, the defendant boarded with one Mrs. Brown in the city ■of St.

Ex parte Arnold

128 Mo. 256 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 30, 1895

That case was followed in State ex rel. v. Board, etc., of Public Schools, 112 Mo. 213 , in which the second division of this court held an election of the school board in St. … McCrary on Elections [2 Ed.], sec. 277; Coglan v. Beard, 67 Cal. 303 ; Ex parte Brown, 97 Cal. 83 .

Giangreco v. Center School District

313 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 25, 1969

Zachry v. Brown (N.D.Ala.) 299 F.Supp. 1360 . This case does not fall within the rule of Tinker v. … Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (C.A. 5) 294 F.2d 150 .

United Capitol Insurance Co. v. Hoodco, Inc.

125 S.W.3d 859 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2003

Mississippi-Fox River Drainage District 2 of Clark County v. Plenge

735 S.W.2d 748 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1987

Brown v. Meyer, 580 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Mo.App.1979). The minutes do not reflect or require such a 500 foot radius arc. … While the general principle is that ordinarily the “minutes” of a meeting are the only admissible evidence of a board’s action, Halls Levee District of Buchanan County v.

Stephens v. St. Louis County Board of Education, Special School District of St. Louis

263 S.W.3d 807 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2008

Spaulding v. City of Edina

122 Mo. App. 65 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1906

Lycan, her husband stepped on the end of a loose board in the sidewalk which caused it to fly up and she, while in the act of stepping, caught her foot under the board and was *67 thus thrown down. … [O’Neill v. Kansas City, 178 Mo. 91 .]

Chaplaine Realty & Construction Co. v. Philip Gruner & Bros. Lumber Co.

137 Mo. App. 451 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1909

[Griffin v. O’Neil, 48 Kan. 117 ; Coates v. Early, 46 S. C. 220; Borden v. Railroad, 113 N. C. 570 ; Brown v. Levi, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 389 ; Pond-Decker Lumber Co. v. Spencer, 86 Fed. 46 ; Durgin v. Smith (Mich.), 94 N. … W. 1044 ; Western, etc., Railroad v. Babcock, 6 Metc. 346 ; Crilly v. Board of Education, 54 Ill. App. 371 ; Putmans Sons v. Macleod, 23 R. I. 373, 377; Smith v. Hughes, L. R. 6 Q. B. 597; Maguire v. DeFrese, 79 Mo.

George F. Robertson Plastering Co. v. Altman

430 S.W.2d 169 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 10, 1968

It is not enough to aver the filing of the demand without an averment of the time when * * Accord: Gault v. Soldani, 34 Mo. 150 ; Bradish v. James, 83 Mo. 313 ; Ewing v. Donnelly, 20 Mo.App. 6 ; Heimberger v. … In McMillan & Parker v.

Federated Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Jones

850 S.W.2d 113 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1993

In Central Missouri Paving Co. v. … In Robinson v.

In Re French

315 Mo. 75 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 17, 1926

[In re *82 Flukes, 157 Mo. 125 , l. c. 132; State v. Baskowitz, 250 Mo. l. c. 107; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400 ; State ex rel. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 246 Mo. 512 .] … A deading case on this subject is Brown v. Circuit Judge of Kalamazoo County, 5 L. R. A.

Marriage of McKarnin v. McKarnin

795 S.W.2d 436 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1990

In Jones v. … In Vinson v.

State v. Muchnick

334 S.W.2d 386 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1960

In the case of State v. … The case of Wittenberg v. Board of Liquor Control, Ohio App., 80 N.E.2d 711 , loc. cit. 716, was a proceeding to revoke a liquor permit.

State ex rel. Alexander v. Board of Adjustment of the City of St. Peters

766 S.W.2d 458 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1989

Wolfner v. Board of Adjustment of City of Frontenac, 672 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1984). … Ogawa v. City of Des Peres, 745 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo.App.1987).

Dustman v. United Soybean Board

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 31, 2024

The board members and boards’ staff carry out these plans and programs and day-to-day board management responsibilities. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 6304, 6111. … United States v.

State ex inf. Killam ex rel. Clare v. Consolidated School District No. One

277 Mo. 458 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 17, 1919

Brown v. McMillan, 108 Mo. l. c. 157; State ex inf. v. Smith, 271 Mo. 168 , l. c. 178; 22 R. C. L. p. 657.] … [State ex inf. v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442 , l. c. 450-451; Campbell v. Sargent, 85 Kan. 590 ; State ex rel. v. Kennerly, 26 Fla. 608 ; State ex rel. v. Hamilton, 29 Neb. 198 .]

Nolan v. Degussa Admixtures, Inc.

246 S.W.3d 1 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 7, 2007

Hall v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 10 S.W.3d 540, 545 (Mo.App.1999). This court consistently has refused to become an advocate for one party in this fashion. … Doehler-Jarvis Div., 342 Mich. 100 , 68 N.W.2d 768 (1955)(despite its broad powers, labor commission must give parties opportunity to be heard on non-appealed matters taken up for consideration); Brown v.

Kansas City v. Mastin

169 Mo. 80 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 4, 1902

[Moran v. January, 52 Mo. 523 ; Welsh v. St. Louis, 73 Mo. 73 , and cases cited; Maloney v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 106 ; Bollinger v. Carrier, 79 Mo. 318 ; St. Joseph v. Robison, 125 Mo. 1 .] … Field, 99 Mo. 352 ; Kansas City v. Oil 140 Mo. 458 ; Kansas City v.

Board of Education ex rel. Johnson Heat Regulating Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

166 Mo. App. 410 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1912

. — We have in this case the same contract and bond which were before us in the case of the Board of Education ex rel. Phillip Carey Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 155 Mo. App. 109 , 134 S. … First, that the question involved in the case is fully considered and determined *419 by this court in Board of Education ex rel. Carey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra.

Houck v. Little River Drainage District

248 Mo. 373 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 1, 1913

[Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495 ; Columbia Bottom Levee Company v. Meier, 39 Mo. 53 ; Mound City Land & Stock Company v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240 ; Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80 ; Morrison v. … PER CURIAM HST BANC. — The foregoing cause coming into Banc from Division One and being reheard there, the opinion of Brown, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court, Brown, J., concurring in the result, Bond, J., dissenting