Case law

Brown v. Internal Revenue Service

3 F. App'x 272 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2001

Joyce Brown, a Kentucky resident proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing her civil action filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6335 and 7426; the doctrine announced in Bivens v. … Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 , 363 (6th Cir.1999).

United States v. Willie Lee Brown

547 F.2d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1977

PER CURIAM: Appellant Brown, along with Pooshea Miller and Curtis Coleman, was indicted on six counts of interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities, i. e., checks. … United States v. McGlamory, 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971). When the court’s charge is reviewed as a whole, there was no error. See United States v. Muncy, 526 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v.

Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

79 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 31, 1935

It is for the Board of Tax Appeals to determine from the facts before it whether the particular transaction is essentially equivalent to a taxable dividend. Commissioner v. Babson (C. C. … We find no error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Board of Tax Appeals. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

Pickett v. Brown

462 U.S. 1 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 6, 1983

See also Brown v. Thomas, 221 Tenn. 319, 323 , 426 S. W. 2d 496, 498 (1968). Enforcement of this obligation depends on the establishment of paternity. … Frances Pickett also sought an order from the court requiring Brown to contribute to the support and maintenance of the child. Ibid. Brown denied that he was the father of the child. Id., at 13.

Linda Kay Sullivan v. George Brown

544 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 19, 1976

See, Ryan v. Aurora City Board of Educ., 540 F.2d 222 (6th Cir. 1976). The Supreme Court commented on this question in Bishop v. … See, Coe v. Bogart, 519 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1975). See also Lipp v. Board of Educ., 470 F.2d 802 , 805 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1972); Mitchell v. Garrett, 510 S.W.2d 894, 897-98 (Tenn. 1974); State ex rel. Pemberton v.

Brown v. Keene

33 U.S. 112 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 18, 1834

The judgment in favour of .the plaintiff below was reversed on the authority of the case of Bingham v. Cabot. In Wood v. … The cross appeal, Keene v. Brown, is to be dismissed, the court having no jurisdiction.

Brown v. Drug Enforcement Administration

109 F. App'x 436 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

Brown v. Atwell

92 U.S. 327 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 1876

Brown & Stone answered, denying generally all the allegations in the' complaint. … Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Buckingham's Executors, 5 How. 341 ; Lawler et al. v. Walker et al., 14 id. 154; R.R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 180 ; Parmelee v.

Brown v. Mississippi

297 U.S. 278 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 17, 1936

“The other two defendants, Ed Brown and Henry Shields, were also arrested and taken to the same jail. … In Fisher v.

Brown v. Ohio

432 U.S. 161 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 16, 1977

The court sentenced Brown to six months in jail but suspended the sentence and placed Brown on probation for one year. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. … Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S., at 302 . We also would have a different case if in sustaining Brown’s second conviction the Ohio courts had construed the joyriding statute to have that effect.

Brown v. Houston

114 U.S. 622 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 4, 1885

To BrowN &. JoNes,' Grrnier and Charles Street. … A contrary result must have been reached under the ruling in Brown v.

Brown Jones v. Lynda A. Landry

387 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1967

Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. … Again, in a much earlier case, Barry v.

Ignacio v. Brown

515 U.S. 1180 · Supreme Court of the United States · Aug 11, 1995

Brown v. Piper

91 U.S. 37 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 18, 1875

91 U.S. 37 (____) BROWN ET AL. v. PIPER. Supreme Court of United States. *38 Mr. George Gifford and Mr. Edward Avery for appellants. Mr. Causten Browne for appellee. MR. … Co. v.

Brown v. Missouri

459 U.S. 1212 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 22, 1983

Parkersburg v. Brown

106 U.S. 487 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 18, 1883

The coupons which fell due June ,1 and Dec. 1, 1876, not having been paid, the plaintiff, Isabella Brown, owning $5,000 of the bonds, filed this bill on behalf of herself and all other holders of the bonds who should unite … White v. Franklin Bank, 22. Pick. (Mass.) 181; Morville v. American Tract Society, 123. Mass. 129; Davis v. Old Colony Railroad, 131 id. 258, 275; and cases there cited.

Brown v. Elliott

225 U.S. 392 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 10, 1912

225 U.S. 392 (1912) BROWN v. ELLIOTT, UNITED STATES MARSHAL IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al. MOORE v. ELLIOTT, UNITED STATES MARSHAL IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Nos. 201, 202. … Reg. v. Button, 11 Q.B. 929. United States v. McDonald, 3 Dillon, 543. United States v. Rindskopf, 6 Biss. 259 . United States v. De Grieff, 16 Blatchf. 20 . R. v. Spragg, 2 Burr. 993.

Brown v. Perdue

177 F. App'x 121 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 2006

Kregos v. Associated Press, 3 F.3d 656, 662 (2d Cir.1993); see also Laureyssens v. … For a thorough summary of Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Code (which are the principal subjects of this litigation), see Brown v. Perdue, 2005 WL 1863673 , No. 04 Civ. 7417(GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2005). .

United States v. J. Marshall Brown

634 F.2d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1981

In United States v. … In Fountain v.

Brown v. Shannon

61 U.S. 55 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 25, 1858

Matthews, Lapouraille & Maughlin, and Griffiss & Cate, who composed four different partnership firms in the pity of Baltimore, separately engaged in the business of planing, who all joined in the bill of complaint against Brown … But it appears bv the record that Brown sold this right to *58 Griffiss & Cate for $1,500. He admits, in bis answer, that lie 'sold and assigned-it for that sum; nor does he suggest that it was worth more.