Case law

Hatbob v. Brown

394 Pa. Super. 234 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1990

In Connelly v. … Brown’s wills irrevocable and Mr. Brown testified that the will exactly expressed his intent at the time it was made, and Mrs. Brown’s intent also at that time. Under Guy v.

Ziegler v. Brown

112 Fla. 421 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 19, 1933

Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Hampton, 70 Fla. 231 , 70 So. 385 ; Madden v. Madden, 169 Ky. 367 , 183 S. W. 931 ; 1916E L. R. A. (N. S.) 892; McKain v. Mullen, 65 W. Va. 558 , 64 S. E. 829 ; Elliott v. … J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Owen v. Brown

13 La. Ann. 201 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 15, 1858

Under the authority of the case of Hoover v. Miller, 6 An. 205, it appears to us that the -objection to the answer is well taken. … How did you retain your right against the defendant Brown ? Were these reservations expressly made in the release which you executed, if in writing ? If the affair were merely oral, what did you agree upon ?

State v. Brown

Hawaii Supreme Court · Sep 30, 2025

State v. … In State v.

State v. Brown

675 A.2d 504 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 26, 1996

State v. Cusack, 649 A.2d 16, 18 (Me.1994). … State v. Powell, 591 A.2d 1306, 1308 (Me.1991).

Brown v. Hill

216 Mich. 520 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1921

over of the duties of said board of county auditors by the board of supervisors of the county of Kent. … See collection of authorities in People v. Quider, 172 Mich. 280, 289 ; North Michigan Water Co. v. City of Escanaba, 199 Mich. 286 .

Brown v. Gerhardt

5 Ill. 2d 106 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1955

(Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston, 325 Ill. 511 ; Douglas v. Village of Melrose Park, 389 Ill. 98 .) … (Douglas v. Village of Melrose Park, 389 Ill. 98 .)

Brown v. Hadwin

182 Mich. 491 · Michigan Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1914

Pro. §§ 716-719; Commonwealth v. Lottery Tickets, 5 Cush. [Mass.] 369; Brown v. Kelley, 20 Mich. 27 ; People v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 36 Mich. 334 ; Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 451 [ 5 N. W. 635 ]. … Badger v. Reade, 39 Mich. 774 ; People v. Recorder of Albany, 6 Hill [N. Y.], 429; Proctor v. Prout, 17 Mich. 473 .”

Tucker v. Brown

9 Wash. 357 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1894

These statements were relied upon to take the cases out of the rule announced by this court in Balch v. Smith, 4 Wash. 497 ( 30 Pac. 648 ), and Hill v.

Brown v. Keach

24 Conn. 73 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 15, 1855

In the case of Wilcox v. … Bucket v. Church, 9 C. & P., 209. 38 E. C. L. R., 83. The more correct rule is laid down in a still later case. Clark v. Sigourney, 17 Conn. R., 517.

Brown v. State

64 Wis. 2d 581 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1974

Brown’s former attorney was called as a witness and without objection stated that on prior occasions he had given Brown his business card. … Ed. 2d 1448 ; the general conditions under which the interrogation took *588 place, Fay v. Noia (1963), 372 U. S. 391 , 83 Sup. Ct. 822, 9 L. Ed. 2d 837 ; any extreme psychological or physical pressure, Brown v.

State v. Brown

296 Or. 458 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1984

Brown, 296 Or 461 , 676 P2d 877 (1984). … We restricted review in this case and the companion case, State v.

Huber v. Brown

243 Ill. 274 · Illinois Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1909

(Brown v. … (Brown v. Schintz, 203 Ill. 136 .)

State v. Brown

184 So. 3d 1265 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Feb 19, 2016

Indeed, in Strickler v. … Brown.

Brown v. Cascaden

43 Iowa 103 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 20, 1876

Banta v. Wood, 32 Iowa, 469 ; Knetzer v. Bradstreet, 1 G. Greene, 382; 4 Kent’s Com., 183. Chancellor Kent, in Dunkley v. Van Bwren et al., 3 Johns. … Bsnta v. Wood, supra.

Brown v. Quinn

220 S.C. 426 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Dec 5, 1951

Scott v. Wells, 214 S. C. 511, 53 S. E. (2d) 400 ; Kelly v. Driggers, 214 S. C. 237, 51 S. E. (2d) 764 ; Thompson v. Bass, 167 S. C. 345, 166 S. E. 346 ; Benn v. Camel City Coach Co., 162 S. C. 44, 160 S. … Raines v. Poston, 208 S. C. 349, 38 S. E. (2d) 145 .

Brown v. Lipscomb

9 Port. 472 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1839

The validity of the mortgage from Brown to Pis-tole, was not disputed on the ground of usury in the Circuit court; but the argument is, that it is a harsh and un-conscientious contract, which neither equity nor law will enforce

Brown v. State

117 Ariz. 476 · Arizona Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1978

In Hogan v. … Finney v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir., 1974) . The state must also apply statutory privileges in the same manner to all who qualify for such privileges.

Brown v. . Lyon

6 N.Y. 419 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1852

In Brant v. Gelston ( 2 Johns. … So too, the same principle was established in the case of Barlow v. Barlow ( 2 N. Y. 386 ), where the language of the will was substantially like that in the case under consideration.

Brown v. Jurczak

397 Ill. 532 · Illinois Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1947

Espadron v. Davis, 385 Ill. 304 ; Herrick v. Lain, 375 Ill. 569 . … (Macy v. Brown, 326 Ill. 556 .)