Case law

Gilman v. Brown

115 Wis. 1 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1902

Racine v. J. I. Case Plow Co. 56 Wis. 539 , 14 N. W. 599 ; Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80 , 55 N. W. 177 . … Co. v. Bohannon, 85 Va. 293, 297 , 7 S. E. 236 ; Montgomery v. Locke, 72 Cal. 75, 77 , 13 Pac. 401 ; Mitchell v. Billingsley, 17 Ala. 391, 393 ; Wallace v. Goodall 18 N. H. 439; Whibbeck v. N. Y. C. R.

People v. Brown

53 Mich. 531 · Michigan Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1884

Brown v. State

101 Tex. Crim. 639 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1925

(Brown v. State, No. 8717). One of the exact points upon which a reversal of that judgment was predicated also appears in the present record. … Brown v. State, 95 Tex. Crim. Rep. 343, 254 S. W. 995 ; James v. State, 88 Tex. Crim. Rep. 656, 228 S. W. 941 ; Bennett v. State, 47 Tex. Crim. Rep. 52, 81 S. W. 30 .

Brown v. Commonwealth

8 Mass. 59 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1811

Brown v. State

716 S.W.2d 939 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 26, 1986

See Brown v. State, 668 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984). Justice Stephens agreed with the reversal based on the court's charge, but dissented to the court’s action on the other two contentions. … Tripplett v. State, 686 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st] 1985), held that a pending order of deferred adjudication was inadmissible, rejecting the decision by the Dallas Court of Appeals in the instant case, Brown v.

Brown v. State

46 Tex. Crim. 572 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 24, 1904

Saine v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 144; Jefferson v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App.. 535; Owens v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 552; Thompson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 39; Thompson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. … App., 168; Scroggins v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 117 ; White’s Ann. C. C. P., secs, 336, 345. We deem the other questions raised without merit. The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Brown ex rel. Brown v. Roberts

205 N.W.2d 746 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 28, 1973

Brown (plaintiff), then a minor, was driving a go-cart on the track and Jerry Duane Hutchins was driving another go-cart owned by Floyd Hutchins. … V.

Brown v. Dysinger

1 Rawle 408 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1829

Miller v. M'Brier, 14 Serg. & Rawle 382 , and Hamilton v. … I refer to Stewart v. Brown, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 461 . Vincent v. Huff, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 298 . Gause v. Wiley, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 538 , and Peebles v. Reading, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 484 .

State v. Brown

301 Or. 268 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1986

State v. Brown, 72 Or App 342, 347 , 695 P2d 1383 (1985). The Court of Appeals rejected the idea, as it had in previous cases, State v. Martin, 71 Or App 1,6 , 691 P2d *273 154 (1984); State v. … As we said in State v. Greene, supra, and State v.

Brown v. M'Cormick

6 Watts 60 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 15, 1837

On the 16th of November 1797, Uriah Brown, David Brown, and Mercer Brown, under whom the plaintiff^ claim, made a deed, including the same premises, to Robert M’Connel, the grantor above named. … The counsel for the plaintiff in error, relies on Chew v.

Knapp v. . Brown

45 N.Y. 207 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1871

The counsel for the plaintiff relies upon Dyett v. Pendleton ( 8 Cow., 325 ), and Clewes v. Dickinson (id., 328). These cases are not analogous to the present. … The order dismissing the appeal as to the respondent Brown must be affirmed with costs.

Brown v. State

617 S.W.2d 234 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1981

See Downey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 505 S.W.2d 907 (1974); Sims v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 730 (1973); *237 Palmer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 797 (1972); Boothe v. … See, however, Parish v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 523 S.W.2d 665 (1975); and Shelton v.

Mullen v. Brown

138 Mass. 114 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 6, 1884

Coupal v. Ward, 106 Mass. 289 . Exceptions overruled.

Brown v. Campbell

1 Serg. & Rawle 176 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1814

Brown v. . Weber

38 N.Y. 187 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1868

The principal cases were very elaborately reviewed and classified in Mallory v. Giilett ( 21 N. … The counsel claims that the referee erred in giving judgment in favor of the Defendant for the board of Plaintiff and his hands, &c.

Opdenwyer v. Brown

155 La. 617 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 28, 1924

Brown, (3) That the boundary line between the properties of petitioner and said O. W. Brown has not been (correctly?) established and marked and located by and between petitioner and said Brown. … In Buisson v.

Brown v. . Nichols

42 N.Y. 26 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1870

(Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sand. Chan., 494.) The property then passes to the personal representatives charged with this lien. … This rule is based not entirely upon the law of agency, but upon reasons of policy and justice which are discussed in the case of Denton v. Noyes ( 6 John., 296 ), and by Judge Woodruff, in Hamilton v. Wright (37 N.

Commonwealth v. Brown

121 Mass. 69 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 20, 1876

Ricker v. Cutter, 8 Gray, 248 . Krebs v. Oliver, 12 Gray, 239 . Smith v. Faulkner, 12 Gray, 251 . … Brown v. Pease, 104 Mass. 291, 308 .

Brown v. Kellogg

17 Wis. 475 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1863

Kellogg sued Brown, and on. tbe return day of tbe summons, wbicb was tbe 26tb of November, 1862; the parties appeared-, and; after issue joined, Brown applied for an adjournment for three months, to procure tbe testimony … Brown did not appear. It is obvious from this recital of facts, that tbe case of Roberts v. Warren, 3 Wis., 736 , is decisive of the action. Tbe statute is tbe same now as when that case arose. R. S., ch. 120, sec. 11.

People v. Brown

45 N.Y.2d 852 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1978

(See, e.g., People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462 , and cases cited; People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462, 465-467 .) Generally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record, but in this case it is. … People v Brown, 28 NY2d 282, 286-287 ). Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum. Order reversed, etc.