Case law

Gould v. Brown

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 538 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1856

plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, on an article of agreement, which, so far as it is necessary to state it in order to an understanding of the case before us, is as follows: “ This contract between Libbeas Brown … And among these rules none seems to be better established than the following laid down by Sergeant W illiams, in his note to Pordage v. Cole, 1 Wms.

Brown v. Whaley

58 Ohio St. (N.S.) 654 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1898

And in Thompson v. Thompson, 17 Ohio St., 659 , the court say: “No question of equity arises in determining the effect of the deed. The question is purely a legal one. ’ ’ To the same effect is Patterson v. … See Peck v. Vandenburg, 30 Cal., 11 ; Salmon v. Wilson, 41 Cal., 595 ; Bradley v. Love, 60 Texas, 472 .

Board of Education v. Montgomery County Board of Revision

95 Ohio St. 3d 462 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2002

.” {¶ 3} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0948 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). {¶ 4} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0949 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition … of Law No. 2, which states: {¶ 5} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶ 6} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in

State ex rel. Tulley v. Brown

29 Ohio St. 2d 235 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1972

Co., v. East Liverpool Bd. of Edn. (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 25 , 225 N. E. 2d 246 ; and State, ex rel. Foreman, v. Brown (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 139 , 226 N. E. 2d 116 . … Freeman, v. Valentine (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 184 , 267 N. E. 2d 594 ; State, ex rel. Pistillo, v. Shaker Heights (1971), 26 Ohio St. 2d 85 , 269 N. E. 2d 42 .

Lanning v. Brown

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 385 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1911

In Tucker v. … And this brings us to the second question: Has Brown disaffirmed the conveyances within proper time- and in proper manner? *394 In Drake v.

Thomas v. Brown

10 Ohio St. (N.S.) 247 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1859

Bettle v. Wilson, 14 Ohio, 257. … Pinney v. Fellows, 15 Vt. 525 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. 537 ; Liles v. Fleming, 1 Dev. Eq. 185 ; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige, 440 ; Wood v. Warden, 20 Ohio, 518; Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. 57 .

Brown v. Huber

80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 183 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1909

In Stines v. … In Talk v.

Webb v. Brown

3 Ohio St. (N.S.) 246 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854

To this point may be cited Osborn v. Moss, 7 Johns. 161 . … Brown & Co. never recovered judgment, and never levied upon the property.

Brown v. Winterbottom

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 127 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1918

Cooper v. Central Trust Co., 81 Md., 559, 591 ; International Trust Co. v. United Coal Co., 27 Colo., 246, 254; Hotchkiss v. Makeel, Receiver, 87 Ill. App., 623 , affirmed 190 Ill., 311 , and Raht v. Attrill, 106 N. … Bank v. Va. Textile Co., 104 Va., 34 ; Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda V. & C. Rd. Co., 103 N. Y., 245 ; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Holbrook, 73 Fed. Rep., 112; Doe v. Northwestern Coal & Trans. Co., 78 Fed.

Brown v. Reed

56 Ohio St. (N.S.) 264 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1897

Raab’s Estate, 16 Ohio St., 273 ; Doan et al. v. Biteley, 49 Ohio St., 588 ; Worener’s Law of Adm. section 534 ; Schouler’s Exr's., section 539; Haight v. Brisbin, 100 N. … Y. 219 ; Corrington’s Estate, 124 Ill., 363 ; Hall v. Grovier, 25 Mich., 428 .

Strongsville Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

77 Ohio St. 3d 402 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1997

Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201 , 527 N.E.2d 874, 877 . See, also, Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. … What we said in Wolf v. Cuyahoga Cty.

State ex rel. Foreman v. Brown

10 Ohio St. 2d 139 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1967

Commissioners of Sinking Fund, v. Brown, Secy. of State (1957), 167 Ohio St. 71 , 146 N. … Hayes, v. Brown, Secy, of State (case No. 40936), which was filed in this court on April 17, 1967.

Brown v. Fowler

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 507 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1902

Thayer v. Allison, 109 Ill., 180 ; Woodland Oil Co. v. Crawford, 55 Ohio St., 161 . … What is said above as to the construction of instruments when one part is certain, and another part on the same subject uncertain, is also applicable to the Minard lease. *527 In the case of Brown v.

Brown v. Kroh

31 Ohio St. (N.S.) 492 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1877

In Rayl v. … Contra, Batchelder v. Low, 43 Vt. 662 ; Beardsley v. Hall, 36 Conn. 270 . 2.

Breslin v. Brown

24 Ohio St. (N.S.) 565 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1874

In Phippen v. … To the same effect are Smith v. Greenlee, 2 Dev. 729 ; McMinn v. Phipps, 3 Sneed, 196 ; Smull v. Jones, 6 Watts & Serg. 128 , and James v. Fulcrod, 5 Texas, 512 . 3.

Preston v. Brown

35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 18 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1878

Bright v. Boyd, 1 Story, 478 ; Id. 2 Story, 605 ; Shine v. Gough, 1 B. & Peatt. 444; Cawdor v. Lewis, 1 Young & C. 427. … Brown would inure to the benefit of Brown, and defeat the limitation as to him. Sturges v. Longworth, 1 Ohio St. 545 . Upon sustaining the demurrer to the cross-petition the cause was sent down for further proceedings.

Lowe v. Brown

22 Ohio St. (N.S.) 463 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1872

Hobson v. McArthur, 16 Peters, 182 ; Quay v. Westcott, 60 Penn. St. 163. On the contrary, the power conferred in this case is specific. … Russell on Arbitration, 206; Cope v. Gilbert, 4 Denio, 347 ; Patterson v. Leavitt, 4 Conn. 50 ; The State ex rel. v. Wilksville Township, 20 Ohio St. 288 . 2.

Cain v. Brown

105 Ohio St. (N.S.) 264 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 31, 1922

Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Domestic Science Baking Co., 95 Ohio St., 180 . … The plaintiff in error relies on the case of Galbraith v. Wood, 124 Minn., 210 .

Cleveland Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

68 Ohio St. 3d 336 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1994

The sockdolager to the school board’s dispute over the true value determination of the subject property is, as stated in Zindle v. Summit Cty. … Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Brown v. Myers

40 Ohio St. (N.S.) 99 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1883

The witness Curry says: “ In connection with this talk in which Brown said Myers was a thief, he Brown, also explained about a transaction of Myers at Smithville, about having an assessment paid after a fire, and reporting … Carmichael v. Shiel, 21 Ind., 66 ; Williams v.