Case law

Brown v. Croy

74 Mo. App. 462 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1898

Eggemann v. Henschen, 56 Mo. 123 ; Bank v. Schmucker, 7 Mo. … Marks v. Bank, 8 Mo. 319 ; Wirt v. Sherman, 67 Mo. App. loc. cit. 172; Brownlow v. Wollard, 66 Mo. App. 636 ; Hooker v. Ins. Co., 69 Mo. App. 141 .

State v. Brown

298 S.W.2d 351 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Feb 11, 1957

State v. Drewing, Mo.Sup., 245 S.W.2d 874 ; State v. Preston, Mo.Sup., 184 S.W.2d 1015 ; State v. Sheeler, 320 Mo. 173 , 7 S.W.2d 340 . … State v. Wilson, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 857 ; State v. Hutsel, 357 Mo. 386 , 208 S.W.2d 227 .

State v. Brown

525 S.W.2d 565 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1975

Brown was convicted by a jury of rape and the abominable and detestable crime against nature. … Brown, came to her apartment and inquired about renting an apartment.

Brown v. State

470 S.W.2d 543 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 13, 1971

See State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805 . … The same point raised in this case was raised in State v. Davison, 457 S.W.2d 674 , l.c. 676-678, and ruled contrary to mov-ant’s position. See also State v. Bradford, 462 S.W.2d 664 [5]; State v.

Brown v. State

343 S.W.3d 760 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2011

Deraughn Brown (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing in light of our Supreme Court’s holding in Webb v. … State v. Prince, 311 S.W.3d 327, 334-35 (Mo.App. W.D.2010). Point denied. In Movant’s second point on appeal, he argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because counsel was ineffective.

State v. Brown

749 S.W.2d 448 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1988

State v. Riley, 716 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Hendrix, supra, 646 S.W.2d at 832 . … See State v. Long, 698 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Davison, 668 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Mo.App.1984).

State v. Brown

949 S.W.2d 639 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1997

State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 326-28 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Huchting, 927 S.W.2d 411 , 420 & n. 3 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); State v. Hoff, 904 S.W.2d 56, 59 (Mo.App. S.D.1995). … State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Mo.App.1983); See also State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 811 (Mo.App.1989).

State v. Brown

543 S.W.2d 56 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1976

Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (Per Curiam 1972). The Webb v. … We note that, at sentencing, appellant identified himself as Richard Brown, Jr.

Brown v. Foote

55 Mo. 178 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 15, 1874

Brown.

Brown v. State

455 S.W.3d 476 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2015

Arvon Brown (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

State v. Brown

543 S.W.2d 796 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1976

State v. Morse, 526 S.W.2d 432 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Nelson, 526 S.W.2d 56 (Mo.App. *797 1975); State v. Richardson, 519 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.1975). … We are clearly bound by State v.

State v. Brown

356 Mo. 1037 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 13, 1947

Charles Leroy Crist, Charles Sickler, Dudley Knudsen, and Clinton Brown, appellant here, were charged with the murder. … See State v. Ring, 346 Mo. 290 , 141 S.W.2d 57 ; State v. Schrum, 347 Mo. 1060 , 152 S.W.2d 17 .

Farrow v. Brown

873 S.W.2d 918 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1994

Brown admitted the existence of a prescriptive easement from plaintiffs land across his property. … See Hartley v. Brazeal, 224 S.W.2d 550 (Mo.App.1949); Richter v. Rogers, 327 Mo. 543 , 37 S.W.2d 523 (1931); Fortenberry v. Bali 668 S.W.2d 216 (Mo.App.1984).

State v. Brown

833 S.W.2d 436 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1992

State v. Marvel, 756 S.W.2d 207, 211 (Mo.App.1988); Joong Sui Noon v. U.S., 76 F.2d 249, 251 (8th Cir.1935); Kidd v. Kidd, 216 S.W.2d 942 , 946 (Mo.App.1949); O’Neill v. Claypool, 341 S.W.2d 129, 134 (Mo.1960). … Brown, because review of the admission of evidence is for prejudice, not simply for error. State v. Rodden, 713 S.W.2d 279, 291 (Mo.App.1986); see also State v. Premier Service Corp., 765 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Mo.App.1989).

Jordan v. Stallings

911 S.W.2d 653 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1995

See Brown v. Weare, 152 S.W.2d at 652 ; G.M. Morris Boat Co. v. Bishop, 631 S.W.2d at 88 . … Brown v. Weare, 152 S.W.2d at 654-55 ; G.M. Morris Boat Co. v. Bishop, 631 5.W.2d at 88.

Brown v. Smith

113 Mo. App. 59 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 16, 1905

[Stone v. Ostranger, 31 Mo. App. 544 ; Amer. Pub. Co. v. Walker, 87 Mo. App. 503 ; Lewis v. Ins. … [Goodson v. Embleton, 106, Mo. App. 77, 80 S. W. 22 ; Real Estate Co. v. Ruhlman, 68 Mo. App. 503 ; Wright & Orison v. Brown, 68 Mo. App. 577 ; Hart v. Hopson, 52 Mo. App. 177 ; Stinde v. Blesch, 42 Mo.

Brown v. State

454 S.W.3d 911 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2015

Lakeir Brown appeals the judgment denying a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. He alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Brown v. Shock

27 Mo. App. 351 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1887

Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437 ; McCoy v. Farmer, 65 Mo. 244 . Under our statute the filing of the petition was the commencement of the action. Rev. Stat., sect. 3485; Gosline v. Thompson et al., 61 Mo. 471 ; Dougherty v. … Mason v. Barnard et al., 36 Mo. 391 ; Cheatham v. Lewis, 3 Johns. 43 ; Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 438 . The case of Musgrove v.

Magee v. Brown

179 S.W.3d 373 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2005

Counts V and VI charged Edith Brown with negligently entrusting her automobile to her daughter, and Count VIII alleged that Edith Brown was liable for Constance Magee’s loss of consortium. … Moreover, by dismissing only Counts V and VI, the circuit court’s order did not dispose of all of the claims against Edith Brown. Count VIII appears to remain pending against her.

Rush v. Brown

101 Mo. 586 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1890

S. 1889, secs. 2396 and 2397; Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264 . ■ So well established is this rule, that we are disposed to stop with the briefest announcement of it rather than to hazard obscuring it by elaboration. II. … Humphreys v. Milling Co. (1889), 98 Mo. 542 . Moreover, we review in this court only such objections to proceedings as have been expressly decided by the trial court. R. S. 1889, sec. 2302.