quoted clause in Missouri

1966Ex parte Badger, 286 Mo. 139 , 226 S.W. 936 , 14 A.L.R. 286 ." [4] (Emphasis ours) In recognition and application of the quoted principle, parents are deprived of the custody of their children in proceedings of this character, when the welfare of the children so demands. [5] Without further belaboring the facts, suffice it to say at this point that we are of the considered opinion that the evidence *635 in the instant proceeding permitted and justified the finding that the grandmother had inflicted physical abuse upon the girl; and, with appropriate respect for the above-stated principles, cer

1966Ex parte Badger, 286 Mo. 139 , 226 S.W. 936 , 14 A.L.R. 286 ." [4] (Emphasis ours) In recognition and application of the quoted principle, parents are deprived of the custody of their children in proceedings of this character, when the welfare of the children so demands. [5] Without further belaboring the facts, suffice it to say at this point that we are of the considered opinion that the evidence *635 in the instant proceeding permitted and justified the finding that the grandmother had inflicted physical abuse upon the girl; and, with appropriate respect for the above-stated principles, cer

2003Id. at 732 .

1992Cf. Sykes v. Bi-State Development Agency, supra. Perhaps more important is the absence of the citation of facts from the record and authorities to support the points and argument.

1984Co. v. Superior Court, Etc., 20 Ariz.App. 185 , 511 P.2d 198, 202, 203 [7-9] (1973); Kasel v. Remington Arms Company, 24 Cal.App.3d 711 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 314, 323 [7] (1972); Verge v. Ford Motor Co., et al., 581 F.2d 384 (3rd Cir.1978), holding that Ford, the manufacturer, was not liable for failure to include a backup warning device on a garbage truck, that being the responsibility of the Leach Company, which installed the garbage compactor unit.

1982Ganem v. Greene, supra; Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co., supra; Nagle v. United States Lines Co., supra. However, State of Arizona v. Mahoney, supra, expressly rules that while the trial court may order the party taking the deposition to pay the expenses incurred by his adversary’s attorney attending the deposition, the court has no discretion to order the payment of attorney’s fees.

1982Ganem v. Greene, supra ; Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co., supra ; Nagle v. United States Lines Co., supra .

1974St.Rep. 643; Maryville v. Farmers’ Trust Co., 226 Mo.App. 641 , 45 S.W.2d 103 .” After carefully examining the referenced statutory enactments in light of established principles of statutory construction, and having weighed numerous authorities from other jurisdictions, the, court in Taylor concluded, particularly in view of the above quoted principle, that the statutory provisions in question did not authorize a city to construct, maintain, and operate an electric transmission line beyond its city limits for the purpose of selling surplus electric power to non-resident individual consumers, s

1974St.Rep. 643; Maryville v. Farmers’ Trust Co., 226 Mo.App. 641 , 45 S.W.2d 103 .” After carefully examining the referenced statutory enactments in light of established principles of statutory construction, and having weighed numerous authorities from other jurisdictions, the, court in Taylor concluded, particularly in view of the above quoted principle, that the statutory provisions in question did not authorize a city to construct, maintain, and operate an electric transmission line beyond its city limits for the purpose of selling surplus electric power to non-resident individual consumers, s

1973Nor is there “an absolute First or Fourteenth Amendment right to a prior adversary hearing applicable to all cases where allegedly obscene material is seized.” Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 1 . c. 488, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 1 . c. 2792, 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973).

1973Nor is there “an absolute First or Fourteenth Amendment right to a prior adversary hearing applicable to all cases where allegedly obscene material is seized.” Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 1 . c. 488, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 1 . c. 2792, 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973).

1973The court’s quoted standard comports favorably with the standards articulated in Miller v. California, — U.S. —, 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

1973The court’s quoted standard comports favorably with the standards articulated in Miller v. California, — U.S. —, 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

1972As stated in Wors v. Tarlton, 234 Mo.App. 1173 , 95 S.W.2d 1199 l.c. 1206: “It is a well-established principle of law that a judgment is conclusive and binding, not only upon the parties to the action or proceeding in which it was rendered, but also upon persons who are in privity with them in respect to the subject-matter of the litigation.” That principle is particularly applicable with respect to governmental bodies, their officers and employees.

1972As stated in Wors v. Tarlton, 234 Mo.App. 1173 , 95 S.W.2d 1199 l.c. 1206: “It is a well-established principle of law that a judgment is conclusive and binding, not only upon the parties to the action or proceeding in which it was rendered, but also upon persons who are in privity with them in respect to the subject-matter of the litigation.” That principle is particularly applicable with respect to governmental bodies, their officers and employees.

1968In Reich v. Thompson, 346 Mo. 577 , 142 S.W.2d 486 , 129 A.L.R. 795 , the trial judge granted a new trial because of the bias and prejudice of a juror and his concealment on voir dire of the fact that there had been certain litigation against himself bearing on that question.

1968In Reich v. Thompson, 346 Mo. 577 , 142 S.W.2d 486 , 129 A.L.R. 795 , the trial judge granted a new trial because of the bias and prejudice of a juror and his concealment on voir dire of the fact that there had been certain litigation against himself bearing on that question.

1967Co., 345 Mo. 777 , 137 S.W.2d 577 ; Service Construction Co. v. Nichols, Mo.App., 378 S.W.2d 283 ; O’Leary v. Illinois Terminal Ry.

1967Co., 345 Mo. 777 , 137 S.W.2d 577 ; Service Construction Co. v. Nichols, Mo.App., 378 S.W.2d 283 ; O’Leary v. Illinois Terminal Ry.

1967Co., 345 Mo. 777 , 137 S.W.2d 577 ; Service Construction Co. v. Nichols, Mo.App., 378 S.W.2d 283 ; O’Leary v. Illinois Terminal Ry.

1966Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery, 357 Mo. 1188 , 212 S.W.2d 748 ; Graham v. Illinois Terminal R.

1966Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery, 357 Mo. 1188 , 212 S.W.2d 748 ; Graham v. Illinois Terminal R.

1966In Schaefer v. Accardi, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 230 , the court approved a converse instruction exactly like the one here refused.

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1965The quoted rule has been approved in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 , and Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 .

1962V.A.M.S. § 473.380, which treats of the “form and verification of claims,” requires only that a claim be “in writing, stating the nature and amount thereof, if ascertainable, and (be) accompanied by an affidavit” containing certain statements, and that, if the claim be “founded on a written instrument, the original or a copy thereof with all indorsements * * * be attached to the claim” or “loss or destruction * * * be stated in the claim.” The practice in probate courts being designed and intended to serve the ends of justice without regard to technical precision in pleading [Guthrie v. Fields

1962V.A.M.S. § 473.380, which treats of the “form and verification of claims,” requires only that a claim be “in writing, stating the nature and amount thereof, if ascertainable, and (be) accompanied by an affidavit” containing certain statements, and that, if the claim be “founded on a written instrument, the original or a copy thereof with all indorsements * * * be attached to the claim” or “loss or destruction * * * be stated in the claim.” The practice in probate courts being designed and intended to serve the ends of justice without regard to technical precision in pleading [Guthrie v. Fields