Case law

Grossoehme v. Cordell

904 S.W.2d 392 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1995

Shepard v. State, 549 S.W.2d 550 (Mo.App.1977). Moreover, criminal defendants normally sign agreements with the Board of Probation and Parole in which they promise to keep the terms of probation. … Brown & Co., 808 S.W.2d 950, 955 (Mo.App.1991).

State v. Goodale

210 Mo. 275 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 17, 1908

[State v. Mallon, 75 Mo. 355 ; Owens v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 345 ; Bishop’s New Crim. Proc., sec. 453; Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527 ; Wiggins v. State, 84 S. W. 821 ; State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654 .] … In State v.

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

In Comair, this Court found the regulation of the Airport Board's finances persuasive in the immunity analysis. … Knopf, 895 S.W.2d 566 , 568 (Ky. 1995) (quoting Legislative Research Commission v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907 , 912 (Ky. 1984) (quoting Arnett v. Meredith, 275 Ky. 223 , 121 S.W.2d 36 , 38 (1938) ) ).

State v. Burnett

955 S.W.2d 785 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1997

State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); State v. Brown, 683 S.W.2d 301, 303 (Mo.App.1984). … Defendant’s reliance on Brown is misplaced. In Brown , the defendant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance, dex-troamphetamine, was reversed. Brown, 683 S.W.2d at 302-03 .

Town of Canton v. McDaniel

91 Mo. App. 626 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1902

State v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 117 ; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands Co., 160 Mo. 111 . … State ex rel. v. Court of Appeals, 97 Mo. 276 . In this view of tbe case, tbe Supreme Court is tbe proper tribunal to adjudicate tbe Federal question so raised on tbe record.

Joshua Lasley v. St. Louis County

Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 2025

Co. v. Messina, 331 S.W.3d 662, 664 (Mo. banc 2011) (citations omitted). … See Boles v. City of St. Louis, 690 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024); Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. City of Springfield, 793 S.W.2d 517, 523 (Mo. App.

Paty v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

168 S.W.3d 625 · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 31, 2005

Walker v. Dir. of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004). The trial court must assess the facts by viewing the situation as it would have appeared to a prudent, cautious and trained police officer. Brown v. … The trial court found that the officer did not have probable cause when he arrested Brown, and reinstated Brown’s license. Id.

Crouppen v. Crouppen

213 S.W.3d 177 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2007

Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 531 (Mo. banc 2003). … In Kleinfeld v. Graneto Datsun, Inc., 686 S.W.2d 885 (Mo.App.

State Ex Rel. Thompson v. Dirckx

321 Mo. 345 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 24, 1928

Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 298 S. W. 732 .] As the order of the Cole County Board of Equalization is void it is the duty of respondent to so adjust the tax books that they will conform to the order of the State Board. … And the performance of that duty may be compelled through the institution of a proceeding of this kind by the State Board. [State ex rel. v. Bethards, 320 Mo. 1164 , 9 S. W. (2d) 603 .] Peremptory writ awarded.

Spencer v. Zobrist

323 S.W.3d 391 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2010

In reviewing the Board’s decision, we must consider the entire record and not simply the evidence that supports the Board’s decision. Coffer v. Wasson-Hunt, 281 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Mo. banc 2009). … We, however, do not defer to the Board’s decision on questions of law. Vivona v. Zobrist, 290 S.W.3d 167, 171 (Mo.App.2009).

State v. Fanning

647 S.W.2d 177 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1983

State v. Brown, 611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App.1980). By failing to request a mistrial appellant has not preserved his point for review. State v. Ginnery, 617 S.W.2d 117, 120 (Mo.App.1981). … State v. Meiers, 412 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.1967); State v. Brown, supra, 611 S.W.2d at 302 ; State v.

Ingram v. Tompkins

16 Mo. 399 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 15, 1852

Gamble v. Johnson, 9 Mo. Rep. 625 . 2. I am utterly at a loss to conceive on what legal or equitable ground the complainants claim a foothold in a court of justice. … In my view, it is a new one, and is not affected, as I conceive, by any thing contained in tbe cases of Prewitt v. Jewell, 9 Mo. Rep. and McNair’s heirs v. Mullanphy’s heirs, 8 Mo. Rep. Decree affirmed.

State Ex Rel. William R. Compton Co. v. Walter

324 Mo. 290 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 30, 1929

Markley, 52 Cal. 411 ; White v. Burkett, 21 N. E. (Ind.) 1087; Samis v. King, 40 Conn. 298 ; Mann v. City of LaMars, 109 Iowa, 251 , 80 N. W. 327 ; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 277 Mo. 56, 63 ; Congregation v. … Barkwell v. Trimble, 309 Mo. 546 . 274 S. W. 683 , and City of Brunswick v. Scott, 275 S.

Browne v. Franklin Fire Insurance

225 Mo. App. 665 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1931

'Browne, is a practicing attorney of said city. … Browne, attorney at law, agreeing to .give Browne one-third of any amount collected on the Franklin policy for his services in collecting it.

Baum v. City of St. Louis

343 Mo. 738 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1938

[Newsom v. Board of Supervisors (Cal. Sup.), 270 P. 676 ; Galvin v. Board of Supervisors, 195 Cal. 686 , 235 P. 450 . See, also, Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond, 170 Cal. 605 , 150 P. 977 ; Hyde v. … [See, also, Newsom et al. v. Board of Supervisors et al., 270 P. 676 .]

Hoelmer v. Heiskell

359 Mo. 236 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1949

Brown v. Hughes, 345 Mo. 958 , 137 S.W.2d 544 ; Brown v. Wilson, 348 Mo. 658 , 155 S.W.2d 176 . … Brown v. Hughes, supra; Brown v. Wilson, supra.

Shoenberg v. Field

95 Mo. App. 241 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1902

Rich Hill v. Donnan, 82 Mo. App. 386 . … Smith v. Syracuse Improvement Company, 161 N. Y. 484 . 3.

Mullen v. City of Kansas City

557 S.W.2d 652 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1977

It is true that the Board’s duty is to find and determine the facts. Veal v. Leimkuehler, 249 S.W.2d 491, 496 [9—12] (Mo.App.1952); McKinney v. … Under such circumstances the scope of this court’s review is whether or not, in the proceeding before the Board, there was competent and substantial evidence to support the Board’s order. Beckmeyer v.

Frederick Spencer v. George Lombardi

500 S.W.3d 885 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2016

v. … Bell v. Phillips, 465 S.W.3d 544, 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting Mayorga v. Mo., 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006)).

Aubuchon v. Gasconade County R-1 School District

541 S.W.2d 322 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1976

Merideth v. Board of Educ. of Rockwood R-6 Sch. Dist., 513 S.W.2d 740 (Mo.App.1974). … Merideth v. Board of Educ. of Rockwood R-6 Sch. Dist., supra.