Legal Opinion

Tate v. State Highway Commission

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 2, 1932PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, J.

This is an action for damages brought on account of the appropriation of certain land, in respect to which plaintiff was a tenant at will, by the State Highway Commission, for a publiehighway. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $500 and defendant has appealed..

The sole point raised by the defendant is that the petition ■ fails to state^a cause of action. There was no demurred to the petition in the trial court, but of course, the point that the petition • does not state a cause of action may be raised at any time. [Strauss v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hickman v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  2. City of Winchester v. RingIllinois Supreme Court · 1924
  3. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railroad v. Knapp-Stout & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
  4. Hayes v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  5. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railroad v. StorySupreme Court of Missouri · 1888

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. City of St. Louis v. Union Quarry & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1965
  2. Millhouse v. Drainage District No. 48 of Dunklin CountyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
  3. St. Louis Housing Authority v. BainterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  4. State Ex Rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. HorineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
  5. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. FoellerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1965

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API