Case law

Brown v. Quinn

406 Mass. 641 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 14, 1990

We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review, see Brown v. Quinn, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 288 (1989), to examine the propriety of the dismissal of a draft report pursuant to Dist. Mun. Cts. R. Civ. … Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 391 Mass. 403 (1984) (late ser *644 vice); Pierce v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 369 Mass. 804 (1976) (same); Gilmore v.

Brown v. Campbell

110 Cal. 644 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1895

The case of Priest v. Brown et al., in which Joseph Brown and A. M. … (Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626 ; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 ; 38 Am. St. Rep. 314 .)

Brown v. Corbin

40 Minn. 508 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 24, 1889

St. 1878, c. 11, § 85; Eastman v. Linn, 26 Minn. 215 ; Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 1 , ( 25 N. W. Rep. 457 , and 30 N. W. Rep. 826 .) 4. … Weimer v. Porter, 42 Mich. 569 , ( 4 N. W. Rep. 306 ;) Miller v. Hurford, 13 Neb. 13 , ( 12 N. W. Rep. 832 .) Order affirmed. Gilfillan, C. J., being absent because of illness, took no part in this case.

Turner v. Brown

7 Tex. 489 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1852

. — Henderson v. Kissam, S T., 46; Greenwood v. Anderson, 8 T., 225; Pridgin v. Strickland, 8 T.,427; Bell v. McDonald, 9 T., 378; Tousey v. Butler, 9 T.,525; Tryon v. Butler, 9 T.,653; Williams v. … Randon, ID T., 74; Kinney v. Lee, 10 T., 155; Pridgen v. McLean, 12 T., 420; Whitehead v. Herron, 15 T., 127; Hopkins v. Wright, 17 T., 30; Chapman v. Sneed, 17 T„ 428; Thouve-nin v. Lea, 20 T., 012; Usher v.

Brown v. Harley

2 Fla. 159 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 15, 1848

Harley on the said 21st November, 1842, by the consideration of said Court recovered against one David Brown a judgment for,” &c.

State v. Brown

108 Haw. 317 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2005

State v. Brown

348 N.W.2d 743 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 18, 1984

See, e.g., State v. … Recently, in Escobedo v.

Brown v. State

222 Md. 290 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1960

“In State v. … In Callan v.

Brown v. McCurdy

278 Pa. 19 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1923

Brown then, made nursing necessary, and this service was performed, in addition, while the latter lived. … The mere fact that the claimant was a daughter-in-law of the decedent raises no presumption of gratuitous service (Schoch v. Garrett, 69 Pa. 144 ; Gerz v.

Griffin v. Brown

167 Iowa 599 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 14, 1914

In Scott v. … In Sneed v.

Brown v. Commonwealth

3 Serg. & Rawle 273 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1817

Humphrey Brown was indicted and convicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bradford county, of a nuisance, in the erection of a dam, across Wyalusing creek, which had been declared a public highway, by an act passed 4th

Brown v. State

316 Ark. 724 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 2, 1994

See, e.g., Brown v. State. 315 Ark. 466 , 869 S.W.2d 9 (1994); Middleton v. State, 311 Ark. 307 , 842 S.W.2d 434 (1992); Pilcher v. State, 303 Ark. 335 , 796 S.W.2d 845 (1990); and Taylor v. … See v. State, 296 Ark. 498 , 757 S.W.2d 947 (1988); White v. State, 290 Ark. 130 , 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986); Andrews v. State, 265 Ark. 390 , 578 S.W.2d 585 (1979).

Claspell v. Brown

332 S.W.2d 851 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · Mar 4, 1960

Brown testified that the car was his but that the bill of sale had been taken in the names of “Estell or Lucille” Brown. Mrs. Brown did not help pay for the car. She did not exercise any control over it. … Brown, and it is our opinion that his action in so doing was correct. The bill of sale is not conclusive of the real ownership of an automobile. Whitt v. Farley, Ky.1955, 275 S.W.2d 906 , 50 A.L.R.2d 990 ; Harlow v.

Brown v. . Penfield

36 N.Y. 473 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1867

This case comes, therefore, directly within the principles and rulings declared in City Bank of New Haven v. Perkins ( 29 N. Y. 554 ). … The case of Gage v. Kendall ( 15 Wend. 640 ) was cited with approval.

Brown v. Fowler

279 N.W.2d 907 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1979

The Browns’ complaint raises all three of these theories. The Browns claim, first, that the residence was negligently constructed because it was built on at least ten feet of fill material, citing Sabella v. … Since defendants did not own the house when it was sold to the Browns, they were unable to disclose anything about its condition to the Browns at that time.

Brown v. State

127 Fla. 225 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 4, 1937

J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.

Braun v. Brown

13 Cal. 2d 130 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1939

.; Mack v. Eummelen, 31 Cal. App. 506 [ 160 Pac. 1096 ] ; Kelly v. Smith, 204 Cal. 496, 501 [ 268 Pac. 1057 ].) In the case of Eggers v. … In Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 501, 507 [ 77 Pac. 1109 , 103 Am. St.

Brown v. Mansur

64 N.H. 39 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Jun 5, 1886

Duncklee v. Company, 23 N. H. 245, 250; Thompson v. Emery, 27 N. H. 269, 272; Cameron v. Little, 13 N. H. 23, 25 ; Gordon v. Drury, 20 N. H. 353. … Parker v. Way, 15 N. H. 45, 51; Hoit v. Cooper, 41 N. H. 111; Haven v. Hobbs, 1 Vt. 238 ; Holcomb v. Stimpson, 8 Vt. 141 ; Jennings v. Brown, 9 M. & W. 495; Hicks v. Gregory, 8 Man. Gr. & S. 378; Smith v. Roche, 6 C. B.

Brown v. Gaulke

191 Wis. 347 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1926

Counsel concede that the order extending time to dispose of motions after verdict was null and Void because it set forth no facts showing cause for such extension within the rule stated in Borowics v. … Borowicz v. Hamann, 189 Wis. 212, 220, 221 , 207 N. W. 426, 429, 430 . This conclusion is not in conflict with that reached in Kurath v. Gove Automobile Co. 149 Wis. 390, 392 , 135 N.

Nutter v. Brown

58 W. Va. 237 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1905

POFFENBARGER, JUDGE: This is a third appeal in the case of Nutter v. Brown, the history of which may be obtained by reference to 51 W. Va. 598 and 46 S. … Brown, one of the defendants, for said sums as part of their costs in the prosecution of their suit and such decree was entered for the sum of $723.62. From it Brown has obtained the present appeal.