Case law

State v. Brown

65 Ohio St. 3d 1435 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1992

Brown, J., dissents.

Biddle v. Brown

66 Ohio St. 3d 1413 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1993

State v. Brown

65 Ohio St. 3d 1410 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1992

State v. Brown

66 Ohio St. 3d 1417 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1993

State v. Brown

65 Ohio St. 3d 1498 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1993

State v. Brown

63 Ohio St. 3d 1435 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1992

Miller v. Brown

33 Ohio St. (N.S.) 547 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1878

There was perhaps as-much reason to suppose that the four inches would turn out to be upon Brown as upon Miller. … But rights in Brown had vested prior to that contract, and no decree upon it could affect their prior-rights. The sole purport of that decree was that Brown was entitled to a deed for eleven inches and not.fifteen.

Mead v. Brown

88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 569 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 13, 1913

Brown v. State

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 99 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1925

Brown v. Gantz

81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 555 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1910

Brown v. Hull

55 Ohio St. (N.S.) 657 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1896

Judgment reversed on the authority of Railway Co. v. Wright, 54 Ohio St., 181 , and cause remanded to circuit court with instructions to pass on questions presented by the bill of exceptions.

Broadstone v. Brown

24 Ohio St. (N.S.) 430 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1873

This case was considered in connection with the case of Harkness v. Corning, supra, and the principle announced in that ease determines this.

Williams v. Brown

78 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 12, 1908

Brown v. Griffiths

11 Ohio St. (N.S.) 329 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1860

O'Boyle v. Brown

1 Wright 465 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1833

Pugh v. Brown

19 Ohio St. 2d 202 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1850

The article of sale or mortgage on which this is founded, constituted a prominent document, in the first— upon this the action of the court was sought, and its binding obligation controverted by Brown. … Taylor, and of Davis and Brown, in the printing establishment, and their connection with it, were the appropriate evidence to establish the same interest and connection in the second.

Brown v. Willis

13 Ohio St. 26 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1844

Brown executed and delivered the note in controversy to MeKitrick, as payee, to be assigned to Willis, and take effect and become absolute when Willis should pay a specified sum of money, and perform a certain amount of labor

Brown v. Witter

10 Ohio St. 142 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1840

Boalt v. Brown

13 Ohio St. (N.S.) 364 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1862

Or, in other words, was there a valid signing and delivery of the note, in any form, by Brown ? It is clear that the note, in the form in which it was signed by Brown, in pencil, was never delivered to the payee. … In all this there is evidently no contract; for the parties, Brown and Hurlbut, did not mutually assent to the same t’erms. Brown’s note was never delivered, and the note which was delivered was not Brown’s.

State v. Brown

62 Ohio St. 3d 1507 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1992