Case law

Wahl v. Cunningham

332 Mo. 21 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 31, 1932

Mo. 146; Browning v. Ry., 284 Mo. 439 , 224 S. W. 748 ; and Ice Co. v. Tamm, 138 Mo. 385 , 39 S. W. 791 . … Dec. 688 ; State v. Schilling, 14 Iowa, 455, 459 ; Robinson v. Brown et al., 82 Ill. 279, 281 ), and such may be accepted by the court as establishing their own existence. [23 C. J. 110, n. 97, and cases cited.]

Nolan v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

250 Mo. 602 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 31, 1913

[Cobb v. Railroad, 149 Mo. 135, 144 ; Milliken v. Commission Co., 202 Mo. 637, 654-5 ; Thomasson v. Insurance Co., 217 Mo. 485, 497 .] … [Spencer v. Transit Co., 111 Mo. App. 653 ; Eikenberry v. Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 442 .]

United States v. School District

399 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 11, 1975

Wall v. Stanley County Board of Education, 378 F.2d 275 , 276 (4th Cir. 1967); United States v. Chesterfield County School District, 484 F.2d 70, 73 (4th Cir. 1973); Cf., Brown v. … Brooks, supra; Wall, supra; Chambers v. Hendersonville Board of Education, 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1966) ; United States v.

In re the Little Chariton Drainage District

602 S.W.2d 916 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1980

It was held that the board had the power to levy a dissolution tax in addition to the organizational levy. The next and final case in this series was State ex rel. Jacoby v. … Stern Bros. & Co. v. Stilley, 337 S.W.2d 934 (Mo.1960); Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148 (Mo.App.1975); Brown v. Brewington, 513 S.W.2d 768 (Mo.App.1974).

Johnson v. United Railways Co.

227 Mo. 423 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 12, 1910

“A court of equity ... is never active in relief against conscience or public con venience[Lord Camden in Smith v. Clay, see 3 Brown’s Chan. R., note *p. 640.] … J., in Mayor v. Comrs., 7 Barr l. c. 366).

Central Missouri Oil Co. v. City of St. James

232 Mo. App. 142 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1937

Brown v. Town of West-port, 116 Mo. 582 , 22 S. … Brown v. Town of Westport, supra, it was held that but one ordinance was necessary, and we will so hold in this case.

State v. Black

591 S.W.2d 21 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1979

State v. Hale, 371 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.1963); State v. … State v. Francis, 544 S.W.2d 306, 312 (Mo.App.1976). There was no abuse of discretion.

Badger Lumber Co. v. Mullins

310 Mo. 602 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 7, 1925

Jones v. … Brown, J., there said: .

State ex rel. Karsch v. Camden County

302 S.W.3d 754 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2010

“An appellate court reviews the findings and conclusions of the [Board] and not the judgment of the trial court.” State ex rel. Teefey v. … As previously related, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Board and we give the Board’s decision “the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” State ex rel. Dotson v. Cty.

Goodson v. City of Ferguson

339 S.W.2d 841 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 14, 1960

There the city charter provided that if remonstrances to a public improvement were filed “the power of the board to make the improvement shall cease for the period of six months.” … Houser v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 592, 595 . See also State ex rel. Barnett v. Sappington, Mo. Sup., 260 S.W.2d 669, 671 ; Metzger v. Metzger, Mo.Sup., 145 S.W.2d 380 , 384; Bieser v.

Cotton Lumber Co. v. La Crosse Lumber Co.

200 Mo. App. 7 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1918

The barn boards he furnished were number 3 two grades below what I figured and the boards are rotten, have rotten streaks full length that I showed William I could poke my lead pencil through. … [See Brown v. Knapp & Co., 213 Mo. 655 , l. c. 697, 112 S. W. 474 ; Brown v. Globe Ptg. Co., 213 Mo. 611, 653, 654 .] These assignments of error are therefore ruled against appellant.

State v. Littleton

649 S.W.2d 225 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 26, 1983

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 160 (Mo. banc 1979). Brown had ample opportunity to view his assailant. … Defendant cites Foster v.

Kays v. City of Versailles

224 Mo. App. 178 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1929

[Brown v. Carrollton, 122 Mo. App. 276, 281 .] … Co. v. Kansas City, 13 S.

Galemore v. Mid-West National Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

443 S.W.2d 194 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1969

Vetter v. Browne, 231 Mo.App. 1147 , 85 S.W.2d 197 (1). Cf. Melugin v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Neb., Mo.App., 344 S.W.2d 144, 148 (6); Crawford v. General Exchange Ins. … Bain, 46 Mo.App. 581, 592 (6); Poplin v. Brown, 200 Mo.App. 255, 265 , 205 S.W. 411, 414 ; T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Stamp, Mo.App., 7 S.W.2d 407 , 409 (2). 8 .

State v. Jennings

326 Mo. 1085 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1930

[State v. Baumann, 1 S.W.2d 153 ; State v. Brown, 181 Mo. 192 , 79 S.W. 1111 ; State v. Speyer, 194 Mo. 459 , 91 S.W. 1075 ; State v. Riddle, 23 S.W.2d 179 .] … [Rhea v. State, 67 Tex.Crim. 197 , 148 S.W. 578 .] We think the following cases tend to support our conclusions: State v. Wheeler, 94 Mo. 252 , 7 S.W. 103 ; State v. Curtis, 77 Mo. 267 ; *Page 1095 State v.

State v. Williams

247 S.W.3d 144 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2008

See State v. … (citing State v. Brown, 939 S.W.2d 882, 883 (Mo. banc 1997)). Where reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found. Id.

City of St. Louis v. Evans

337 S.W.2d 948 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Sep 12, 1960

No. 71, DeKalb Co. v. Purported “Enlarged School Dist. R-ll, DeKalb Co.”, 362 Mo. 848 , 245 S.W.2d 13, 17 (2); Producers Produce Co. v. Industrial Commission, 365 Mo. 996 , 291 S.W.2d 166, 170 (1); Brown v. … Co. v.

Helling v. United Order of Honor

29 Mo. App. 309 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1888

Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 579, 580 ; Nance v. Metcalf, 19 Mo. App. 183 . … Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475 .

In Re Adams

248 S.W.2d 63 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1952

In Adams v. Brown, supra, we ruled that because of the lack of notice the decree of adoption was not conclusive upon the father, Carl H. … Adams did have the lawful right thereto, after March 23, 1951 is the necessary and inevitable consequence of our decision in Adams v. Brown, supra, in which we ruled in favor of Carl H.

Knight v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

542 S.W.3d 330 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2017

State v. Carter , 202 S.W.3d 700 , 706 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (quoting State ex rel. Blackwell v. Elrod , 604 S.W.2d 768 , 769 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) ). … See Frankoviglia v. Centerre Bank of Branson , 791 S.W.2d 7 , 9 (Mo. App.