Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
7.12s
Brown v. the Brita Products Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 2026
BROWN V. … BROWN V. THE BRITA PRODUCTS CO. 15 V.
Cited 0 timesPublished147 U.S. 640 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 6, 1893
Webb v. Fairmaner, 3 M. & W. 473; Robinson v. Waddington, 13 Q. B. 753; Sheets v. Selden, 2 Wall. 177 ; Calvert v. Williams, 34 Maryland, 672 ; Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Minnesota, 294; Bemis v. … In Griffith v.
Cited 47 timesPublished712 F.2d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 31, 1982
of the district court is vacated and that the cause is remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, for further consideration in light of General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States v. Jesse Ausbin Brown
18 F.3d 1424 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 15, 1994
United States v. Brown, 990 F.2d 397, 398-99 (8th Cir.1993). … United States v. Johnston, 973 F.2d 611, 614 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1019 , 122 L.Ed.2d 165 (1993); United States v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedUnited States v. Walter Howard Brown
785 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 6, 1986
Defendant Brown’s first argument concerns what he believes was a deprivation of his right to testify fully on his own behalf at trial. … In U.S. v.
Cited 20 timesPublished546 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 21, 1977
546 F.2d 908 Brown v. Jones * ** No. 76-3978 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 1/21/77 N.D.Tex AFFIRMED * Summary Calendar case; Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. … Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409 ** Local Rule 21 case; see NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966
Cited 0 timesPublishedHenry Floyd Brown v. United States
277 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1960
United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 284, 285 ; Crawford v. United States, 6 Cir., 188 F.2d 536 ; Collier v. United States, 6 Cir., 190 F.2d 473, 477 ; Wilson v. United States, 6 Cir., 214 F.2d 313 ; Miller v. … He cites, in support, the cases of United States v. Bucur, 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 297, 301-302 , and United States v.
Cited 13 timesPublished516 U.S. 1179 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 18, 1996
Cited 6 timesPublished356 F.2d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 1966
356 F.2d 602 Addie Sue BROWN, Annie Bell Harris, Charles Hosley, Samuel Johnson, Roscoe Jones, Alvin Packer, George Smith, Lelia Waterhouse and Freddie Lee Watson, Appellants, v. CITY OF MERIDIAN, Appellee. No. 21730. … Lefton v. City of Hattiesburg, supra.
Cited 3 timesPublished211 U.S. 321 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 7, 1908
There are cases' cited from the English reports showing that even a larger number than that has been held not to exceed a valid limitation, and in Humberston v. Humberston, 1 P. Wms. 332, which is cited in Thellusson v. … Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127, 191 ; Matter of McGraw, 111 N. Y. 66, 104 . The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is Affirmed..
Cited 52 timesPublished122 U.S. 214 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 1887
The defendants also proved by the testimony of Brown that he had no notice of the proceedings in bankruptcy until after he had obtained the said deed from Willey, nor until after the plaintiff .in error had purchased the … This point was directly decided in Gifford v. Helms, 98 U. S. 248 .
Cited 8 timesPublished579 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 4, 2014
See Zumpano v. … Simcuski v.
Cited 51 timesPublished70 U.S. 377 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 15, 1865
[See Orchard v. Hughes, 1 Wallace, 73; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Id. 70.—Rep.] Judgment affirmed.
Cited 1 timesPublished79 F. App'x 196 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 14, 2003
She changed parties and became a Republican prior to running for election to the Cook County Board in 1998 (she lost the election). Clerk Brown was elected as a Democrat. . … Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 640-41 (7th Cir.1985) (citations omitted); see also Upton v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. William Brown, Danny Brown, Scot Burkhead, Randall Sorrells, and Brian Hollenback
944 F.2d 1377 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1991
See also United States v. … See, e.g., Ramos, 932 F.2d at 619 n. 20; United States v. Brown, 900 F.2d 1098, 1102 (7th Cir.1990).
Cited 114 timesPublished81 F. App'x 86 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 14, 2003
See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED.
Cited 0 timesPublished539 F.2d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1976
539 F.2d 708 Brown v. Harding * No. 75-4404 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 9/7/76 1 S.D.Ala. 2 AFFIRMED *** * Summary Calendar case; Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPainter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Howard Brown
716 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 24, 2013
Bell Atl. 12 PAINTER’S MILL GRILLE v. BROWN Corp. v. … Harris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 300 F.3d 1183, 1197 (10th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added); PAINTER’S MILL GRILLE v. BROWN 13 see also Shaikh v.
Cited 658 timesPublished952 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 23, 1991
Hicks v. Brown Group, Inc., 902 F.2d 630 (8th Cir.1990). … Brown Group, Inc. v. Hicks, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1299 , 113 L.Ed.2d 234 (1991). On June 6, 1991, this court ruled in Tag-gart that the Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedJames Beals v. Merit Systems Protection Board, James H. Beals v. Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense
636 F.2d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1980
Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 , 85 S.Ct. 792, 801 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). And as the Supreme Court recently emphasized in Miller v. … We see no indication that the Board is mistaken in its interpretation of the Savings Clause. On the contrary, the interpretation adopted by the Board is consistent with both the language and the purpose of the clause.
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna