Case law

Brown v. Heller

51 Misc. 2d 660 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1966

Such cases as Everson v. Board of Educ. ( 330 U. S. 1 ) and McCollum v. Board of Educ. ( 333 U. … A useful test in cases of this kind may be found in Two Guys v. McGinley ( 366 U. S. 582 ) which dealt with Sunday closing laws.

People v. Brown

24 N.Y.S. 1111 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1893

People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49 ; People v. Brooks, supra; Code Crim. Proc. § 542. 2. … People v. Burns, 33 Hun, 296 .

Brown v. Sax & Kimble

7 Cow. 94 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1827

The only question is, whether the former was entitled to the boards which the defendants made of them. We think the property was not changed by this act. … Betts v. Lee, 5 John. 338 ; Curtis v. Groat, 6 id. 168; Babcock v. Gill, 10 id. 287.

Brown v. Van Camp

36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 142 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1883

Wheeler v. Board

12 Johns. 363 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1815

Two Associates v. Brown

131 Misc. 2d 986 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1986

These include: People v Onofre ( 51 NY2d 476 [sexual acts among consenting unmarried adults are not criminal]) and People v Uplinger ( 58 NY2d 936 ); Hardwick v Bowers (760 F2d 1202 [11th Cir 1985] [private sexual conduct … (See, Matter of Adult Anonymous II, supra; 420 E. 80th St. v Chin, supra.)

Brown v. Father Divine

173 Misc. 1029 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1940

(Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 N. Y. 167 ; Boyd v. De La Montagnie, 73 id. 498; Cowee v. Cornell, 75 id. 91; Wood v. Babe, 96 id. 414; Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 145 id. 313; Handerson v. Murray, 108 Minn. 76 ; 121 N. … (Bosworth v. Allen, 168 N. Y. 157, 167, 168 ; Lightfoot v. Davis, 198 id. 261 ; Falk v. Hoffman, *1031 233 id. 199 ; Whiting v. Hudson Trust Co., 234 id. 394; Fur & Wool Trading Co., Ltd., v.

Lord v. Brown & Bouck

5 Denio 345 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1848

On that subject I refer to the late case of Freeman v. The People, ( 4 Denio, 9 .) 2. … As was said in the case of Webber v. Shearman, “ the only effect of the statute is to narrow the circle of selection,” so that the landlord must act by an agent who is an officer.

Brown v. Father Divine

176 Misc. 10 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1941

In a preliminary stage (Brown v. Father Divine, 163 Misc. 796 ; affd., 254 App.

School Board v. Board of Education

25 Misc. 40 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1898

board. … The special fund is administered by the board of education; the general fund by the borough school boards as so apportioned among them by the board of education.

Dryer v. Brown

5 Silv. Sup. 549 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1890

Hopkins v. Lott, 111 N. Y. 577 ; Pursell v. Fry, 19 Hun, 595 ; Harrison v. Ayers, 18 Id. 336 . … See Robert v. Ditmas, 7 Wend. 522 ; Boyd v. Bigelow, 14 How. 511 ; Godding v. Porter, 17 Abb. 374 ; Coe v. Coe, 37 Barb. 232 ; Somerville v. Crook, 9 Hun, 664 . In the case of Denise v.

Brown v. Deane

31 N.Y.S. 1126 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1894

I recommend affirmance without opinion on the authority of Rutherford v. Town of Madrid, 77 Hun, 545 , 28 N. Y. Supp. 923 .

Nelson v. Brown

20 N.Y.S. 978 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1892

Ocumpaugh v. Wing, 12 Wkly. Dig. 566 ; Lewis v. Smith, 9 N. Y. 502 ; Merchants' Bank v. Thomson, 55 N. Y. 7 ; Payn v. Grant, 23 Hun, 134 . … Ev. §-524; Brower v. Bowers, 1 Abb. Dec. 219; Van Camp v. Fowler, (Sup.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 281 , affirmed 133 N. Y. 600 , 30 N. E. Rep. 1147.

Brown v. Remington

35 N.Y.S. 621 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1895

Without considering the question of whether or not the contract, which is relied upon by the plaintiff for his cause of action, can be enforced, as to which there is perhaps some doubt (Brewing Co. v.

Schmidt v. Brown

30 N.Y.S. 1135 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1894

Dewey v. Brown

12 N.Y.S. 661 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1891

Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N. Y. 319 ; Martin v. Silliman, 53 N. Y. 615 ; Lloyd v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124 .

Brown v. King

17 N.Y.S. 678 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1892

The proof, therefore, as it seems to me, brought the case within the rule stated in Hooley v. Gieve, 9 Abb. N.

Boylan v. Brown

17 N.Y.S. 648 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1892

Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y. 396 , 5 N. E. Rep. 56; Cahill v. Hilton, 106 N. Y. 512 , 13 N. E. Rep. 339; Splittorf v. State, 108 N. Y. 205 , 15 N. E. Rep. 322; McQuigan v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Y. 618 , 26 N. E. … Rep. 13; McGrath v. Walsh, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 705 .

Cheever v. Brown

8 N.Y.S. 931 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1890

Brown v. Klock

5 N.Y.S. 245 · New York Supreme Court · May 18, 1889

Brown’s evidence, and that is that the preliminary examination by the defendant’s counsel shows that the witness took no part in the conversation or transaction, and therefore was competent to speak. Simmons v. … Brown, which was sent by the cashier of the bank to Brown, by letter, stating it was from E. K. Petrie.