Case law

State v. Ogle

967 S.W.2d 710 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1998

State v. Brown, 953 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Mo.App.1997). … In Miranda v.

State ex rel. Garesche v. Roach

258 Mo. 541 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 2, 1914

Garesche v. Drabelle et ah, as members of the Board of Election Commissioners, etc., likewise submitted at this term. … Buder as the Board of Election Commissioners of the city of St.

Clark v. Cole County

272 Mo. 135 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 9, 1917

[Covell v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 164 Mo. App. l. c. 635; McFarland v. Accident Assn., 124 Mo. l. c. 219; Sills v. Burge, 141 Mo. App. l. c. 154; Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 120 Mo. App. l. c. 210; Edwards v. … [Stanton v. Kline, 11 N. Y. 196 ; Davies v. Newcastle & L. Ry. Co., 71 Ohio St. 325 .]

How v. Dorscheimer

31 Mo. 349 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 15, 1861

(Bryan v. Miller, 28 Mo. 32 ; Gilman v. Hovey & Buchanan, 26 Mo. 288 .) The confession of judgment in this case was made by a partnership firm, Brown & Warren. … If it can be satisfied out of the partnership effects of Brown & Warren, without the necessity of touching any individual property of Brown, the judgment creditor of Brown has no interest in it, one way or the other; for

Elrod & Sons, Inc. v. District Council No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

744 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 11, 1990

The board fined Elrod $6,000 as a penalty for this violation. … Roberts v. Browning, 610 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Porter, 581 F.2d 698, 703 (8th Cir.1978). The summary judgment procedure is not a “disfavored procedural shortcut.”

Curl v. BNSF Railway Co.

526 S.W.3d 215 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 16, 2017

Id.; Brown v. W. Ry. of Ala., 338 U.S. 294, 296 , 70 S.Ct. 105 , 94 L.Ed. 100 (1949); Yauch, 10 P.3d at 1186-87 ; Eubanks v. CSX Transp., Inc., 223 Ga.App. 616 , 478 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1996); Lopez v. … Thus, in Brown v.

State v. Cole

377 S.W.2d 306 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 13, 1964

State v. Stone, 354 Mo. 41 , 188 S.W.2d 20, 22 [7] ; Thurman v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 308 S.W.2d 680, 684 [2]; Rudin v. … State v. Finn, Mo.Sup., 243 S.W.2d 67, 73 [14-16]; State v. Bounds, Mo.Sup., 305 S.W.2d 487, 491 ; State v. Trainer, 336 Mo. 620 , 80 S.W.2d 131, 134 [5, 6] ; State v. Lloyd, Mo.Sup., 263 S.W. 212 , 215 [9] ; State v.

S.M.H. v. Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and Sarah Steelman, Commissioner of Administration, State of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2020

Of Mo. v. … We further noted that the City Board and the State failed to take effective measures to desegregate the school system in the years immediately following Brown v.

Lewis v. Lohman

936 S.W.2d 582 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1996

Chinnery v. Director of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Mo.App.1994). … Thomas v. Director of Revenue, 875 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Mo. App.1994). Courts generally accept the breathalyzer machine as a reliable device for the measurement of blood alcohol content. State v.

Hill v. Atterbury

88 Mo. 114 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1885

Defendant Atterbury claimed through Brown, and by the very terms of the statute the court was authorized to allow him to come in and defend. Hayden v. Stewart, 27 Mo. 286 . … If Atterbury held the possession of the land under Brown, then Brown had a right as landlord to defend the suit. Sutton v. Cassellegi, 77 Mo. 897 .

Hertz v. McDowell

358 Mo. 383 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 8, 1948

In the case of McCord v. … Spalding v. Robertson, 357 Mo. 37 , 206 S.W.2d 517 ; Marlow v. Nafziger Baking Co., supra; Adams v. Thompson, Mo.

Taylor v. American Airlines

943 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 24, 1996

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Inland Oil and Transport Co. v. … Roberts v. Browning, 610 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir.1979); United States v. Porter, 581 F.2d 698, 703 (8th Cir.1978). The summary judgment procedure is not a “disfavored procedural shortcut.”

Clary v. United Telephone Co.

670 S.W.2d 936 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1984

It was impossible to raise those lines by a two-by-four for the hay to clear them because the board was not long enough and the lines were too heavy to be so supported. … Brown, 340 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. banc 1960); White v. Burkeybile, 386 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.1965); Kettler v. Hampton, 365 S.W.2d 518 (Mo.1963).

Deatherage v. Sheidley

50 Mo. App. 490 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1892

See, also, Broadwell v. Clark, 39 Mo. 170 , and Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. 234 . … Brown et al.

Ex Parte Brown

530 S.W.2d 228 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 8, 1975

Brown of the law firm of Holli-day, Holliday & Brown is in direct contempt of this Court; and it is further ordered that Mr. David W. … Curtis v. Tozer, 374 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App.1964); Glenn v. Hendrix, 349 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.1961). 3 . Petitioner was released from jail on his own recognizance pending a final decision of this case. 4 .

Turner v. School District of Clayton

318 S.W.3d 660 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 16, 2010

See Harrison v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 607 S.W.2d 137, 146 (Mo. banc 1980) (“ ‘the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another’ ” (quoting Brown v. … Care and Treatment of Schottel v.

Akers v. Director of Revenue

193 S.W.3d 325 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2006

Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 34 S.W.Sd 166, 169 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). … Akers relies on Brown v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 166 (Mo.App.

Opinion No. 92-80 (1980)

Missouri Attorney General Reports · Mar 7, 1980

Wild v. Brown 120 N.J.Eq. 31 , 183 A. 899 . … Also, in the case of Vest v.

Lemmons v. McKinney

162 Mo. 525 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 14, 1901

[Jacobs v. Mosely, 91 Mo. 457 ; Krider v. Milner, 99 Mo. 145 ; Pharis v. Jones, 122 Mo. 125 ; McWilliams v. Samuel, 123 Mo. 659 .] … [Hedges v. Pollard, supra.]

Stitt v. Stitt

617 S.W.2d 645 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1981

While our courts appear divided on this issue, this court concludes that in the instant proceedings, the rationale expressed in Brown v. Brown, supra, is the appropriate one to follow. In Brown v. … That is not the main point, but it illustrates the soundness of the rationale expressed in Brown v. Brown, supra, and the one adopted herein.