Case law

Brown v. . Knapp

79 N.Y. 136 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1879

Ch., 614; Cooke v. Meeker, 36 N. Y., 18 ; Lowndes v. Lowndes, 15 Vesey, 301; Hill v. Hill, 3 Vesey & B., 183; Leslie v. Leslie, 1 Lloyd’s & Goold’s, 1; Magoffin v. Patton, 4 Rawle, 119 ; Harvey v. Harvey, 2 P. … Wood, 26 Barb., 356 ; Dodge v. Manning, 1 N. Y., 298 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 16 id., 257; Gridley v. Gridley, 24 id., 130; Harris v. Fly, 7 Paige, 421 ; Olmstead v. Brush, 27 Conn., 530 .)

People v. Brown

40 N.Y.2d 381 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1976

(United States v Jenkins, 420 US 358, 370 .) … (Wade v Hunter, 336 US 684, 689 .)

People v. Brown

7 N.Y.2d 359 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1960

The same principles and reasoning that require affirmance in People v. Tomaselli, also decided today (7 N Y 2d 350), call for affirmance here. … The present case is entirely different from People v.

Sims v. . Brown

64 N.Y. 660 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1876

People v. Brown

28 N.Y.2d 282 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 1971

Distinguishing Preston v. United States ( 376 U. S. 364 ), as dealing with a warrantless search in connection with an arrest, and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co. ( 391 U. … S. 20 ; People v. Lewis, 26 N Y 2d 547). This court has in appropriate circumstances sustained searches based on probable cause related to the vehicle itself (People v. Montgomery, 15 N Y 2d 732; People v.

Brown v. . Clark

77 N.Y. 369 · New York Court of Appeals · May 20, 1879

(Ackerly v. Vernon, 1 Comyn, 381; Barnes v. Crowe, 1 Ves. Ch., 486; Mooers v. White, 6 John. Ch., 375; Van Cortlandt v. Kip, 1 Hill, 590 ; S. C., 7 id., 346.) In Van Cortlandt v. … I will cite a few of them : (Habergham v. Vincent, 2 Ves. 228; Smart v. Prujean, 6 id., 565; Williams v. Evans, 1 Cromp. & Mee., 42; Allen v. Maddock, 11 Moore’s P. C. C., 427; Burton v. Newbury, 1 L. R. Ch.

Wormser v. . Brown

149 N.Y. 163 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1896

(Jerome v. R oss, 7 Johns. Ch. 315 ; T. & B. R. R. Co. v. B., H. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107, 123 ; Shepard v. M. R. Co., 131 N. Y. 215 ; Doyle v. M. E. R. Co., 136 N. Y. 505, 511 ; Bookman v. N. Y. … (McHenry v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 58 ; Health Department v. Purdon , 99 id. 237 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 107 id. 650; Genet v. D. & H. C. Co., 122 id. 505 ; Thomas v. M. Mutual Protective Union, 121 id. 45; MacLaury v.

Miner v. . Brown

133 N.Y. 308 · New York Court of Appeals · May 24, 1892

In Hicks v. Cochran ( 4 Edw. … In Cloos v.

Rockwell v. . Brown

36 N.Y. 207 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1867

It does not refer to the time when Hopkins had the conversation with Brown at Underwood's, testified to. 3. That it is immaterial. Neither of these grounds are tenable. … The ruling of the referee falls within the doctrine laid down by this court in Pendleton v. Empire Stone Dressing Company ( 19 N.Y., 13 , 18 ).

Brown v. . Richardson

20 N.Y. 472 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1859

Brown was to be regarded as the assignor of a thing in action and not as the mere indorser of a promissory note. Bichardson therefore, at the time he was offered, was no doubt a competent witness. … Brown was not to be regarded as the assignor of a thing in action within the meaning of the Code.

Rosevelt v. . Brown

11 N.Y. 148 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1854

In the case of Adderly v. … In the case of Worrall v.

Brown v. . N.Y.C.R.R.

32 N.Y. 597 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1865

Since the trial of this action, the decisions of this court, in Chapman v. The New Haven R.R. Co . ( 19 N.Y., 341 ), and Colegrove v. N.Y. N.H.R.R. Co . ( 20 N.Y., 492 ), have been published. … The fact of making complaint in such cases is admissible. ( Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Duer, 233 ; S.C., 1 Kern., 416, 419, per DENIO, J.; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 102; Aveson v. Kinnard, 6 East, 188; Bacon v.

Dawley v. . Brown

79 N.Y. 390 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1880

(Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y., 170 .) Now there is nothing in this case to show that Brown claimed any title adverse to that of Culver, the grantor of the plaintiff. … In Barrows v.

Doty v. . Brown

4 N.Y. 71 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1850

In the action before the justice brought by Brown against Doty, Brown declared for and at first claimed to recover, for all the goods levied ,on. … The same principle is decided in the case of Bochaud v. Dias, ( 3 Denio, 238 .) But it is unnecessary to refer to further authorities.

Knapp v. . Brown

45 N.Y. 207 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1871

The counsel for the plaintiff relies upon Dyett v. Pendleton ( 8 Cow., 325 ), and Clewes v. Dickinson (id., 328). These cases are not analogous to the present. … The order dismissing the appeal as to the respondent Brown must be affirmed with costs.

People v. Brown

45 N.Y.2d 852 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1978

(See, e.g., People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462 , and cases cited; People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462, 465-467 .) Generally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record, but in this case it is. … People v Brown, 28 NY2d 282, 286-287 ). Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum. Order reversed, etc.

Brown v. . Weber

38 N.Y. 187 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1868

The principal cases were very elaborately reviewed and classified in Mallory v. Giilett ( 21 N. … The counsel claims that the referee erred in giving judgment in favor of the Defendant for the board of Plaintiff and his hands, &c.

People v. Brown

48 N.Y.2d 388 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1979

Brown’s first trial ended in a hung jury. … Thus, in People v Crimmins ( 26 NY2d 319 ) and People v De Lucia ( 20 NY2d 275 ), this court set aside verdicts where jurors had made unauthorized visits to locations described in trial testimony, finding the jury conduct

Stewart v. . Brown

37 N.Y. 350 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1867

People v. Brown

26 N.Y.2d 88 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1970

As we pointed out in People v. … Sutter v. Easterly, 354 Mo. 282 , 189 S. W. 2d 284 ,162 A. L. R 437.” In People v.