Case law

Empey v. Parole Board

845 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1988

845 F.2d 1020 Empey v. Parole Board * NO. 88-1035 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit APR 18, 1988 1 Appeal From: W.D.Tex. 2 AFFIRMED. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2

Henderson v. Brown

519 U.S. 886 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 7, 1996

Lee v. Board of Com'rs

114 F. 744 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 1902

Bridge *746 Co. v. Campbell, 60 Ohio St. 406 , 54 N. E. 372 . … The case seems to come entirely within the principles laid down by the supreme court in the case of Chapman v. Douglas Co., 107 U. S. 348 , 2 Sup. Ct. 62, 27 L. Ed. 378 . See, also, Wrought-Iron Bridge Co. v.

Washington v. Board Of Education

498 F.2d 11 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 1974

Relying in part on Pickering v. … Our reading of the applicable decisions, however, discloses no such absolute rule. 14 In Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist.

Board of Regents v. Dawes

522 F.2d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 26, 1975

This action arises out of a suit for declaratory judgment brought by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (University) seeking a determination of the rights and status of the parties under the Equal Pay Act … Reliance Life Insurance Co. v. Burgess, 112 F.2d 234 (8th Cir. 1940). .

Brown v. United States

113 U.S. 568 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 2, 1885

In Edwards v. … But if there had been any irregularity or defect in the report of the board it was the duty of Brown to object to it without unreasonable delay.

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

441 U.S. 281 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 18, 1979

Brown) (expressing concern that 1864 revenue provisions would allow “every little petty officer” to investigate the affairs of private citizens). … Brown), 6549-6550 (Rep. Moss) (1958). It is clear from Congressman Moss’ comments that § 1905 is one of those statutes. 104 Cong. Rec. 6549-6550 (1958).

Zall v. National Labor Relations Board. National Labor Relations Board v. Zall

202 F.2d 499 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 1953

McComb v. Super-A Fertilizer Works, Inc., 1 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 824 . … Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1944, 321 U.S. 678 , 64 S.Ct. 830 , 88 L.Ed. 1007 .

Taylor & Quarles v. Brown

9 U.S. 234 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 18, 1809

The opinions delivered by the judges of-appeals of Virginia in the case of Johnson v. … But the case of Johnson v. Buffington was much stronger than this.

Brown v. Ind. Bd. of Law Examiners

84 U.S.L.W. 3654 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2016

Deborah Glover v. Merrick Bank

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 2026

See Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. … (quoting Brown v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 799 (3d Cir. 2001)). 8

Moore Brothers Co v. Brown & Root Inc

207 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2000

Board of Supervisors v. Southern Cross Coal Corp., 238 Va. 91 , 380 S.E.2d 636, 638 (1989) (quoting Southwood Builders, Inc. v. Peerless Ins., 235 Va. 164 , 366 S.E.2d 104, 107 (1988)). … V.

Brown v. United States

659 F.2d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1981

659 F.2d 1075 Brown v. U. S. 80-1163 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 9/29/81 N.D.Tex., 653 F.2d 196

Brown v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

481 U.S. 1049 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 18, 1987

Brown v. Secretary of Air For

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ELLIOTT ROY BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Brown's state law claims, finding them barred by the Rooker- Feldman doctrine, which provides that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims adjudicated by state courts. See Rooker v.

Reading Co. v. Brown

391 U.S. 471 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 3, 1968

The same day, the District Court appointed a receiver, Francis Shunk Brown, a respondent here. … Co. v. Bloom, 164 U. S. 636 ; Bereth v. Sparks, 51 F. 2d 441 ; §77 (n), 11 U. S.

United States v. Wesley B. Brown, Jr.

617 F.2d 54 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 11, 1980

Tolliver v. United States, 563 F.2d 1117, 1121 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Trug-lio, 493 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1974). … The district court, in the exercise of its discretion, was required to consider defendant’s reasons for seeking withdrawal, but was not compelled to grant the motion based on Brown’s assertions. See United States v.

Brown v. New York

365 U.S. 821 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 20, 1961

United States v. Brown

348 U.S. 110 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 6, 1954

S. 951 , because of doubts as to whether Brooks v. United States, 337 U. S. 49 , or Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 , controlled this case. … The Court held in Johansen v. United States, 343 U.

Railroad Co. v. Brown

84 U.S. 445 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 17, 1873

Indeed, there is nothing to show that Catharine Brown knew of the. ditíiculties into which the original company had fallen, nor of the part performed by the lessees and receiver in operating the road.