Case law

United States v. Richard Brown, Jr.

88 F.4th 750 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 13, 2023

Because Brown raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United States v. Torrez, 925 F.3d 391, 395 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 649 (8th Cir. 2004)). … This evidence, Brown argues, “goes into the territory of expert witness.” Because Brown did not object to this testimony, we review for plain error. See United States v.

Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown

44 F. 539 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · Sep 5, 1890

United States v. Brown

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2004

LEFFLER, Memphis, Tennessee, for 1 No. 02-6205 United States v. Brown 3 4 United States v. … No. 02-6205 United States v. Brown 5 6 United States v.

Brown v. Peake

266 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Feb 8, 2008

Gregory Brown has not responded. … . § 5103 (a) notification error, such error was prejudicial, and that remand to the Board of Veterans Appeals was required. In Sanders v.

Brown v. Henry

9 F. App'x 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 25, 2001

Those findings support the conclusion that denial of Brown’s mistrial motion did not render his trial fundamentally unfair. See Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th Cir.1993). … We do not consider the remaining claims raised in Brown’s opening brief as no certificate of appealability was granted with respect to those issues. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); Gatlin v.

United States v. Brown

988 F.2d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 1993

988 F.2d 1213 U.S. v. Brown ** NO. 92-1708 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Mar 19, 1993 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex. 2 AFFIRMED. ** Conference Calendar

Brown v. Alves

377 F. App'x 18 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 26, 2010

See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition 'will not be published.

Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Ingenio, Inc.

899 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Aug 16, 2018

Brown v. Gardner , 513 U.S. 115 , 118, 115 S.Ct. 552 , 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994). … The Board must follow the governing regulations, see , e.g. , Crediford v. Shulkin , 877 F.3d 1040 , 1047 (Fed.

Tom Hudson & Associates, Inc., and Tom Hudson v. City of Chula Vista, Sca Services Inc., and Chula Vista Sanitary Service, Inc.

746 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 5, 1984

Brown to actions of state agencies, see Bates v. … The actions of a private person are not exempt from federal antitrust laws under Parker v. Brown unless actively supervised by the State. California Liquor Dealers v.

Kerns v. Bader

663 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); see also United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243, 1252 (10th Cir.2011). … Forde v.

Brown v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

100 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 29, 1938

Browne, husband of appellant, died February 29, 1936. At the time of his death, there were in existence four industrial insurance policies on his life, totalling $2,351.56. … We held in Shellman v.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown

640 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 2011

NEDC v. BROWN 6415 Our caselaw has consistently recognized the distinction between nonpoint and point source runoff. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. … Reg. 6282  NEDC v. BROWN 6429 (Feb. 12, 1976).

Bolton v. Dep't of the Navy Bd. for Corr. of Naval Records

914 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2019

1553 (Discharge Review Boards). … Cir. 1990) (holding that the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records “has no authority to void court-martial convictions” under § 1552(f)); Cooper v. Marsh, 807 F.2d 988, 991 (Fed.

Brown v. Cassens Transport Co.

492 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2007

Plaintiffs-appellants Paul Brown, William Fanaly, Charles Thomas, Gary Riggs, Robert Orlikowski, and Scott Way (“plaintiffs”) filed suit in federal district court against defendants-appellees Cassens Transport Company (“Cassens … Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 409 F.Supp.2d 793 (E.D.Mich.2005). On the same day the district court issued its dismissal order, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Colleen P. Kramer v. Banc of America Securities, LLC

355 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2004

See Partee v. … See Thaler v.

Hooey v. Brown

277 F. App'x 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2008

Brown v. Dillion

28 F. App'x 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 29, 2002

The district court, after giving Brown notice and an opportunity to be heard, dismissed the complaint sua sponte on the ground that Brown may not, under Heck v. … See, e.g., Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938, 947 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1115 , 118 S.Ct. 1051 , 140 L.Ed.2d 114 (1998); Russell v. Smith, 68 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir.1995); Janetka v.

James Brown v. United States

556 F.2d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 1977

See, for example, United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 577 at 579-580 (3d Cir. 1977). Here it is apparent that Brown’s attorney knew that Ms. … Appeal of Brown, 500 F.2d 1399 (3d Cir. 1974). .

Incres Steamship Co. v. International Maritime Workers Union

372 U.S. 24 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 18, 1963

B. 343 (1961), and other Board decisions. We granted certiorari, 368 U. S. 924 , and the case was argued with McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, supra, and its companion cases. … Therefore, no different result as to Board jurisdiction follows from the fact that our immediate concern here is the picketing of a foreign-flag ship by an American union. See Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U.

White v. Brown Shoe Co.

30 F.2d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 1929

We have heretofore so held, Hardie v. Swafford Bros. Dry Goods Co. (C. C. A.) 165 F. 588 , 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 785, and so has practically every court of last resort to which the question has been presented.