Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2011Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 585 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo. banc 1979) (considering a facial challenge and upholding the notice provisions of the MLRL); see also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (finding notice by publication inadequate and authorizing notice by first-class mail). [5] At the circuit court, Owner also claimed that his right to redemption was violated. [6] Owner's motion contended that the collector was the entity from which he never received notice of the tax sale. 2011Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 585 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo. banc 1979) (considering a facial challenge and upholding the notice provisions of the MLRL); see also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (finding notice by publication inadequate and authorizing notice by first-class mail). [5] At the circuit court, Owner also claimed that his right to redemption was violated. [6] Owner's motion contended that the collector was the entity from which he never received notice of the tax sale. | 1 | 1 |
Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liensgreen1 sentence2011Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 585 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo. banc 1979) (considering a facial challenge and upholding the notice provisions of the MLRL); see also Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (finding notice by publication inadequate and authorizing notice by first-class mail). [5] At the circuit court, Owner also claimed that his right to redemption was violated. [6] Owner's motion contended that the collector was the entity from which he never received notice of the tax sale. | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Bagleygreen1 sentence1998Powell v. Bagley, 862 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Mo.App.1993); Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Associates, Inc., 573 S.W.2d 947, 955 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Associates, Inc.green1 sentence1998Powell v. Bagley, 862 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Mo.App.1993); Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Associates, Inc., 573 S.W.2d 947, 955 (Mo.App.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Flowers
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 48 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pessin v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1997As discussed in Pessin , an assessment requires consideration of three components: classification, valuation and tax rate. 875 S.W.2d at 146 . 1997For the first two contentions, Assessor relies principally on Pessin v. State Tax Commission, 875 S.W.2d 143 (Mo.App.1994). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey
green
1 sentence1996The trial judge also stated that since Owner believed some payments were due Logsdon, the litigation over changes and extras was “over approximately $16,000.00 ... at the outset.” Principles applicable to awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to contractual provisions were reviewed in considerable detail in Architectural Resources, Inc. v. Rakey, 912 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Humphrey
green
1 sentence1973Movant, originally, was tried as a second offender for the crime of operating an automobile without the consent of the owner in violation of § 560.175, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; the trial court, after a jury verdict, fixed punishment at five years imprisonment under the provisions of § 560.-180, RSMo 1969 V.A.M.S.; movant appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by this court in State v. Humphrey, 462 S.W. 2d 804 (1971). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State Ex Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority
green
1 sentence1954In the case of State of Missouri on Information of Dalton, Attorney General v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 270 S.W.2d 44 , we considered this contention at length and there held that the aforesaid sections of the Law could not be construed as the taking of private property for private use in violation of Article I, § 28, when considered in connection with Article VI, § 21 of the Constitution. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Fleishman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
green
2 sentences1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. 1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Rockwell v. Standard Stamping Co.
green
2 sentences1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. 1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Co.
neutral
1 sentence1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Hays v. Hogan
green
2 sentences1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. 1928Appellant cites the eases of Barz v. Fleischman Yeast Co., 271 S. W. 361 ; Fleischman v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 148 Mo. App. 117 , 127 S. W. 660 ; Jacobson v. Beffa, 282 S. W. 161 , and Rockwell v. Stamping Co., 210 Mo. App. 168 , 241 S. W. 979 . *248 Respondent relies principally upon the Case of Havs v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1 , 200 S. W. 286 , and Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S. W. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Williams v. Gerber
neutral
1 sentence1920This the statute requires and such is therefore essential. [Peiffer v. Suss, 73 Mo. 245 .] Unless notice is waived, notice in writing must be given as the statute contemplates. [Williams v. Gerber, 75 Mo. App. 18 .] We may perhaps infer that respondent relies upon the writ of summons issued by the judge of the probate court to supply the element of intention to present the claim for allowance, but there is no law, so far as we are aware, authorizing the court to issue such a summons and the administrator is bound only by the notice the statute requires to be served upon him. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Pfeiffer v. Suss
neutral
1 sentence1920This the statute requires and such is therefore essential. [Peiffer v. Suss, 73 Mo. 245 .] Unless notice is waived, notice in writing must be given as the statute contemplates. [Williams v. Gerber, 75 Mo. App. 18 .] We may perhaps infer that respondent relies upon the writ of summons issued by the judge of the probate court to supply the element of intention to present the claim for allowance, but there is no law, so far as we are aware, authorizing the court to issue such a summons and the administrator is bound only by the notice the statute requires to be served upon him. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Meissner v. Meissner
neutral
1 sentence1915Furthermore it seems that appellant by having-left it entirely to his alleged assignor (the original owner of the claim and who was prosecuting it in his own name)' to see that his interests were protected, may well be held to have waived any right to intervene at the late hour when leave was sought therefor. [See Meissner v. Meissner, Intervener, 68 Wis. 336 .] Other phases of the matter need not he discussed.The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R.
green
1 sentence1910For the limitation to be valid the carrier must be willing to assume in transporting the proffered property, the full responsibility the law imposed, and must allow the owner the privilege of choosing between a restricted and full liability. [1 Hutchinson, Carriers, sec. 404; McMillan v. Railroad, 16 Mich. 79 ; Little Rock, etc., v. Cravens (Ark.), 18 L. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.