Case law

Brown v. Seaman Furniture Company, Inc.

171 B.R. 26 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 1994

Presently before the Court are defendant Seaman Furniture Company’s (“Seaman”) Motion for Summary Judgment and the plaintiff Brenda Brown’s (“Brown”) response. I. … Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

International Business MacHines Corp. v. Brown

857 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 1994

See George Campbell Painting Corp. v. … Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir.1989).

Brown v. County of San Bernardino

250 F. Supp. 3d 568 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 17, 2017

WHEN DEPUTIES ASKED BROWN WHAT HER NAME WAS SHE REFUSED TO GIVE HER NAME MULT TIMES AND SAID FUCK YOU. DO [sic] TO BROWN BEING A PRIOR UB SHE COULDN’T BE BOOKED INTO BB JAIL AND WAS TAKEN TO WVDC. … BROWN TRIED TO KICK OUT THE WINDOW IN THE UNIT SO SHE WAS HOBLED [sic], BROWN WAS COMBATIVE AND WVDC WAS ADVISED. BROWN REFUSED TO SIGN HER CITATION SO I COMPLETED A PC DEC FOR HER.

Brown v. Brown

District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 11, 2020

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). … See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Brown v. Texarkana National Bank

889 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 12, 1995

Ozark Supply Co. v. Glass, 261 Ark. 750 , 552 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1977) (internal citation omitted). See also Prairie Implement v. Circuit Court, 311 Ark. 200 , 844 S.W.2d 299, 299 (1992). … To construe the statute otherwise “would render it unconstitutional under Power [Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 [ 47 S.Ct. 678 , 71 L.Ed. 1165 ] (1927) (reversing 169 Ark. 748 , 276 S.W. 599 ).]” Cavette v.

Brown v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.

195 F. 1007 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 16, 1912

In Kane v. Bowden, 85 Neb. 347 , 123 N. … See, also, Karchner v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 218 Pa. 309 , 67 Atl. 644 ; Oakley v. Neese, 54 Ga. 459 ; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Padgett, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 435 , 37 S. W. 92 ; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v.

Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

3 F. Supp. 2d 1473 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 1998

The motivation for this case is injuries suffered by plaintiff Betty Smith allegedly caused by her smoking cigarettes manufactured by defendants Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., R.J. … Bailey v. Greenberg, 516 A.2d 934, 941 (D.C.1986) (emphasis added); see also Hobson v.

Brown v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

647 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 18, 1986

Louis v. Alverno College, 744 F.2d 1314 (7th Cir.1984). In St. … See Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 754 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir.1985) (suit filed 92 days after receiving right-to-sue letter); Noe v.

Valdez v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

867 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 19, 2012

Nov. 20, 2005)(Browning, J.)). … Whiting v. Hogan, No. 11-671, 855 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1270 , 2012 WL 664805, at *2 (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2012)(Browning, J.); Arnold v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Az., 827 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1291-92 (D.N.M.201 l)(Browning, J.).

Brown v. Colantuono, et al.

2005 DNH 093 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 15, 2005

Brown v . … See, e.g., Cotto v .

Floyd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

159 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2001

See Smith v. … V.

Brown v. American Institutes for Research

487 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2007

Brown, Plaintiff, filed a Complaint against “American Institutes for Research.” See Paper No. 1. … Montgomery County Council v. Leizman, 268 Md. *615 621, 633, 303 A.2d 374, 380 (1973).

Brady v. Board of Education

222 F. Supp. 3d 459 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 2016

HAZEL, United States District Judge This is a lawsuit brought by a retired teacher, Maria Brady (“Plaintiff’), against her former employer, Defendant Board of Education of Prince George’s County (“Defendant” or “the Board … However, the Board still avoids liability if it “establishes as a matter of law that the proposed accommodation will cause ‘undue hardship in the particular circumstances.’ ” Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ.

Gregory v. Kijakazi

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 17, 2021

See Brace v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2009) (“If an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling.” (citing Brown v. … (quoting Brown, 390 F.3d at 540)).

Fishermen's Dock Cooperative, Inc. v. Brown

867 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 4, 1994

Brown, and his designees, and asking that the quota be set aside. … In Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers v.

Brown v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2021

Brown v. … Brown v. District of Columbia, 928 F.3d at 1073.

Brown v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

342 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 31, 2018

See Brown v. Perez , 835 F.3d 1223 , 1231 (10th Cir. 2016). … See Brown , 835 F.3d at 1233 ; see also Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy , 169 F.3d 16 , 19 (D.C.

Brown v. United Parcel Service

940 F. Supp. 291 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 8, 1996

Hospice of Metro Denver v. Group Health Ins. of Oklahoma, 944 F.2d 752 , 754 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Rebaldo v. Cuomo, 749 F.2d 133, 139 (2d Cir.1984)); see also Settles v. Golden Rule Ins. … Settles v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 927 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir.1991). UPS argues that precedent of the Tenth Circuit dictates that Brown’s second claim for relief be preempted. In Averhart v.

Brown v. U.S. Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT LEE BROWN, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. ll-l758 (RJL) U.S. … See Sentence, Nov. 14, 2011, United States v. Brown, No. 201 1-CF3-740l (D.C. Super. Ct.); see also USPC Mot., Ex. 1 (Sentence Monitoring Computation Data as of 03-16~2012) at 1-2.

Brown v. The Alexander McNeil

4 F. Cas. 352 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 15, 1874

When they first went on board, he told them that they had better stay on shore, as it was summer time, and he would pay their board. This he neglected to do, and the men paid it themselves. … There is no evidence whatever that the owner or master provided food for these people on board the bark.