stated the general rule in Missouri

1964On page 405, the Supreme Court opinion made reference to and quoted approvingly the rule announced by the Supreme Court of Maryland as follows: “The court stated the general rule to be as follows [Keely-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, 199 Md. 156 , 85 A.2d 795 ], 85 A.2d loc.cit. 797(1): ‘This broad rule, which has been adopted quite generally in the United States following the decisions in England, has not been fully accepted in Maryland.

1964On page 405, the Supreme Court opinion made reference to and quoted approvingly the rule announced by the Supreme Court of Maryland as follows: “The court stated the general rule to be as follows [Keely-Springfield Tire Co. v. Daniels, 199 Md. 156 , 85 A.2d 795 ], 85 A.2d loc.cit. 797(1): ‘This broad rule, which has been adopted quite generally in the United States following the decisions in England, has not been fully accepted in Maryland.

1998Id.

1994The court stated the general rule that “the reimbursement rights of a workmen’s compensation carrier are governed by the law of the state whose Workmen’s Compensation Act was invoked by the claimant in obtaining benefits.” Id. (citations omitted).

1990Also, in Sims v. State, 466 N.E.2d 24, 25 (Ind.1984), the court stated the general rule in criminal law that an accused is not responsible for a death unless the variation between the result “hazarded and the result achieved is not so extraordinary that it would be unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the actual result.” The court in People v. Dunhill, 40 Colo.App. 137 , 570 P.2d 1097 (1977), faced a case where the intoxicated driver was driving with one headlight and killed a pedestrian.

1986I, § 14 unless it is plainly unreasonable. [6] In *19 Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968), this Court stated the general rule that, [t]he legislative branch of the government has the power to enact statutes of limitations and inherent in that power is the power to fix the date when the statute commences to run.

1986I, § 14 unless it is plainly unreasonable. 6 In Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968), this Court stated the general rule that, [t]he legislative branch of the government has the power to enact statutes of limitations and inherent in that power is the power to fix the date when the statute commences to run.

1979In State v. Edwards, 435 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Mo.1968), this Court stated the general rule: “[Tjestimony which, by clear inference, showed that an alleged accomplice had implicated the defendant in the offense involved, was just as much hearsay and objectionable as the implicating statement itself would have been. [T]he extrajudicial statement of a third person [that] was attempted to be used as evidence of the guilt of the accused, [is] a clear-cut hearsay rule violation.” In Chernick , the circuit attorney testified that after he had questioned the alleged accomplice, “we put an arrest order out for

1977The power created by a particular instrument may be a general or a limited power, the manner of its execution may be specified and limited." 243 S.W.2d at 316 .

1977The power created by a particular instrument may be a general or a limited power, the manner of its execution may be specified and limited.” 243 S.W.2d at 316 .

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963The court stated the general rule to be, 52 S.W.2d p. 561 (2-5) : “Where the record shows personal violence — a battery — inflicted upon the slayer by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the general rule is that a manslaughter instruction is called for, State v. Bongard (Mo.Sup.Div. 2) 330 Mo. 805 , 51 S.W. (2d) 84 , * * *. an¿ ⅛⅛ js true though the evidence consist of the testimony of the defendant alone, State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 581 , 121 S.W. 149, 153 ; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 185 , 212 S.W. 853, 855 .” To the same effect is the ruling in State v. Bongard, 330 Mo. 805 , 51

1963Therein ( 51 S.W.2d 1 . c. 89), the rule in this state is clearly stated and is applicable to the case now before us: “But, in view of the long line of decisions cited in * * *, it appears to be well settled that the law of this state is not as liberal as in some other jurisdictions; and that to constitute adequate provocation there must be more than opprobrious words, more, even, than a demonstration with a deadly weapon imminently threatening danger — there must be actual violence to the person.” In the case of State v. Wright, Mo., 336 S.W.2d 714, 1 . c. 717(1), cited by the defendant, the

1963Therein ( 51 S.W.2d 1 . c. 89), the rule in this state is clearly stated and is applicable to the case now before us: “But, in view of the long line of decisions cited in * * *, it appears to be well settled that the law of this state is not as liberal as in some other jurisdictions; and that to constitute adequate provocation there must be more than opprobrious words, more, even, than a demonstration with a deadly weapon imminently threatening danger — there must be actual violence to the person.” In the case of State v. Wright, Mo., 336 S.W.2d 714, 1 . c. 717(1), cited by the defendant, the

1959Johns-Overland Sanitary Sewer Dist., 353 Mo. 974 , 185 S.W.2d 780, 783 , the court stated the general rule but nevertheless reversed the case with directions to the lower court to determine under the facts how much of the decree prayed for was enforceable and to amend the decree accordingly.

1959Johns-Overland Sanitary Sewer Dist., 353 Mo. 974 , 185 S.W.2d 780, 783 , the court stated the general rule but nevertheless reversed the case with directions to the lower court to determine under the facts how much of the decree prayed for was enforceable and to amend the decree accordingly.

1957The opinion in McAnally v. Little River Drainage District, 325 Mot 348, 28 S.W.2d 650, 651 , is by our Supreme Court en banc.

1957In this State the sudden and unexpected rupture of some portion of the internal structure of the body, or the failure of some essential function of the body, is held to be an accidental injury only when it results from some unusual strain or exertion of the employee or some unusual condition in the employment.” We ruled in De Lille v. Holton-Seelye Co., 334 Mo. 464 , 66 S.W.2d 834 , and in State ex rel.

1957In this State the sudden and unexpected rupture of some portion of the internal structure of the body, or the failure of some essential function of the body, is held to be an accidental injury only when it results from some unusual strain or exertion of the employee or some unusual condition in the employment.” We ruled in De Lille v. Holton-Seelye Co., 334 Mo. 464 , 66 S.W.2d 834 , and in State ex rel.