Case law

State v. Brown

40 La. Ann. 725 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1888

Henry Brown, the appellant, and several others were jointly indicted for conspiracy and murder. … Before his trial, the case was continued as to one of the defendants, and a nolle prosequi en *727 tered as to the others, confining the trial to Henry Brown alone, who was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death.

Flanagan v. Brown

70 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

blank, and sues upon it in behalf of his principal, it is no defense for the maker to say that the plaintiff in the suit is not the owner, and this, as I understand it, is all that is really decided in the case of Curtiss v. … If his interest is only a right to share the proceeds which result from the execution of his power, the agent has not a power coupled with an interest. “ The case of Brown v.

McEntire v. Brown

28 Ind. 347 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1867

Doe v. Campbell, 10 Johns. 475 ; Jackson v. Leonard, 9 Cow. 653 ; Wade v. Lindsey, 6 Met. 407 ; Polts v. Gilbert, 3 Wash. C. C. 475 ; Allen v. Holton, 20 Pick. 458 ; Sawyer v. Kendall, 10 Cush. 241 . … The State v. Swope, supra, is one of many instances of this kind. The juiy was instructed that the “ right of action accrued • as soon as Brown purchased the land.”

Smith v. Brown

2 Mich. 161 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1851

Brown, charging him with perjury, in that portion of his answer relating to the character, and object of the deed from the complainant to Brown, and the execution and payment of the bond for $2000, as a full consideration … On the argument it was conceded that Brown died before the motions were determined, and no judgment was ever pronounced upon the verdict.

Brown v. Regan

10 Cal. 2d 519 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1938

In view of the verdict, “in favor of the plaintiff Lansing Brown, and against defendant, Wm. Regan”, it is obvious that this is so. … (Benson v. Southern Pac. Co., 177 Cal. 777 [ 171 Pac. 948 ]; Ambrose v. Allen, 113 Cal. App. 107 [ 298 Pac. 169 ]; Harker v. Southern California Edison Co., 83 Cal. App. 204 [ 256 Pac. 848 ]; Mitchell v.

State v. Brown

236 N.J. 466 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2019

State v. Brown

286 S.C. 445 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Aug 28, 1985

This Court stated in Gentry v. Watkins-Carolina Trucking Co., 249 S. C. 316, 154 S. … State v. McFarlane, 279 S. C. 327, 306 S. E. (2d) 611 (1983). Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed pursuant to Rule 23. Affirmed.

Brown v. Scott

51 Pa. 357 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1865

So it is held in the English courts, in those of the United States, and in the courts of the states generally: Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch 553 ; Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 567 ; Burdick v. … Green, 15 Johns. 247 ; Davidson v. Bridgport, 8 Conn. 472 ; Elliot v. Green, 2 N. H. 526. And such is undoubtedly the doctrine maintained in this state. In Hart v.

Brown v. State

42 Tex. Crim. 417 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 1901

In Weatherford v. … See Ware v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 521; McConnell v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 329; Floyd v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 341; Rutherford v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 92.

State v. Brown

32 La. Ann. 1020 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1880

Martin v. Brown

127 N.E.3d 220 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 9, 2019

Sims v. Brown

574 So. 2d 131 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 18, 1991

David SIMS, M.D., Petitioner, v. Mary BROWN, Respondent. Christian KEEDY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Mary BROWN, Respondent. SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. Mary BROWN, Respondent. … We granted review of Brown v.

Keen v. Brown

46 Fla. 487 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 15, 1903

This was not true in the cases of Smith v. Gibson, 14 Fla. 263 , and Swepson v. Call, 13 Fla. 337 , where the petition did not aid the order. … Davis v. Hall, 4 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 403. See, also, 9 Encv. Pl. & Pr. 613 ; Greenup v. Crooks, 50 Ind. 410 ; Williams v. Cheatham, 99 Ga. 301 , 25 S. E. Rep. 698 .

Gantt v. Brown

238 Mo. 560 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 20, 1911

The exact question was *565 up in State ex inf. v. … In State ex rel. v.

Brown v. State

262 Ind. 629 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1975

Appellant Brown appeals here from a dismissal of his petition made pursuant to PC. Rule 1. He was convicted in the year 1969 of second degree murder upon a trial by jury on a charge of first degree murder. … Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S. Ct. 1322 , 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 ; Sumpter v. State (1974), 261 Ind. 471 , 306 N.E.2d 95 ; Sturrup v. Mahan (1974), 261 Ind. 462 , 305 N.E.2d 877 .

Hull v. Brown

35 Wis. 652 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1874

It was a primary liability, and is quite analogous in principle to the contract entered into in Vogel v. Melms, 31 Wis., 306 ; Young v. French, ante, p. 111; Aldrich v. Ames, 9 Gray, 76 , and that class of cases. … See also Mountstephen v. Lakeman, Law Reports, 7 Q. B., 196.

Brown v. Irwin

21 Vt. 68 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 15, 1848

In Bruce v. … In Hewet v. Mantell, 2 Wils. 374, the learned judge declared to the same effect.

Brown v. Commonwealth

458 S.W.2d 444 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · Oct 2, 1970

In the cases of Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 390 S.W.2d 884 ; Schweinefuss v. Commonwealth, Ky., 395 S.W.2d 370 ; and Russell v. … See for example United States v. Corallo, 309 F.Supp. 1282, 1284 (D.C.N.Y.1970); United States v. Fancher, 195 F.Supp. 634 (D.C.Conn.1960); United States v. Elliott, 418 F.2d 219 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1969); Tillman v.

Brown v. Ward

53 Md. 376 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1880

Wakefield v. Brown

38 Minn. 361 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Apr 30, 1888

“Execution,” H, 724; Hutsonpiller v. Stover, 12 Grat. 679; Michell v. Cue, 2 Burrow, 660; U. S. v. Hanford, 19 John. 173 ; Noland v. Seekright, 6 Munf. 185 . … Real Prop. 281, (marg. p. 566;) Hommel v. Devinney, 39 Mich. 522 ; Nixon v. Cobleigh, 52 Ill. 387 ; Lyon v. Kain, 36 Ill. 362, 369 ; Middleton v. Findla, 25 Cal. 76, 81 ; Fallen v. Kehoe, 38 Cal. 44 ; Staak v.