Case law

Asmus v. Waterloo Community School District

722 N.W.2d 653 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 13, 2006

Dunlavey, 526 N.W.2d at 855-56 ; see also Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725, 728 (Iowa 2002). … In the later case of Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725, 728-29 (Iowa 2002), we formulated a different standard for those situations in which the mental injury can be readily traced to a specific event. 2 .

Brown v. Brown

3 Conn. 299 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jun 30, 1820

The plaintiff claims title as heir at law to Peter Brown, deceased; and the defendant resists on the ground thatheis his grantee.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

38 Cal. 2d 659 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1952

The Carr case was followed by Fields v. … (Stark v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 103 Ore. 80 [ 204 P. 151 ] ; Stulginski v. Waterbury Rolling Mills Co., 124 Conn. 355 [ 199 A. 653 ]; Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v.

Brown v. . Brown

146 N.Y. 385 · New York Court of Appeals · May 21, 1895

Roth v. SCHOOL DIST. OF SCOTTSBLUFF, ETC.

213 Neb. 545 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1983

Board of Education, 204 Neb. 561, 563 , 283 N.W.2d 391, 393 (1979). In Meyer v. … Moser v. Board of Education, supra at 564-65, 283 N.W.2d at 393 . Similarly, “waive recall” is a phrase of common understanding, meaning relinquishing the right to be called back.

Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming

177 W. Va. 145 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1986

Powell v. Brown, [ 160 W.Va. 723 ] 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977).” See also State ex rel. Wilson v. Truby, 167 W.Va. 179 , 281 S.E.2d 231 (1981); Trimboli v. Board of Education, 163 W.Va. 1 , 254 S.E.2d 561 (1979). … Hawkins v. Tyler County Board of Education, supra; Beverlin v. Board of Education, 158 W.Va. 1067 , 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975).

Brown v. Brown

253 Ill. 466 · Illinois Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1912

(Bates v. Gillett, 132 Ill. 287 ; Clark v. Shawen, 190 id. 47.) … (Knight v. Pottgieser, 176 Ill. 368 ; Carter v. Carter, 234 id. 507 .) The only object here in postponing the division of the estate was that the widow might enjoy it during her lifetime or widowhood.

Brown v. Brown

62 R.I. 375 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · May 10, 1939

Prosser v. *378 Prosser, 51 R. I. 58; Ward v. Ward, 48 R. I. 60. … Brown v. Brown, 48 R. I. 420.

McLaughlin v. Bronson

206 Conn. 267 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 16, 1988

In Connecticut, the pardoning power is vested in the legislature; Palka v. Walker, 124 Conn. 121 , 198 A. 265 (1938); which has delegated its exercise to the board of pardons. Dumschat v. … State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 406 , 533 A.2d 866 (1987). In State v.

Brown v. Brown

137 Mass. 539 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 5, 1884

Justice Met-calf in Tilden v. … Brown $100 “ in addition to the sum before bequeathed to her,” the intention to make an addition to the trust fund would be presumed.

Brown v. Brown

252 Ark. 329 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 1972

Brown, Jr., appeals from a decree awarding the number to his father, the appellee. … Brown and not to assign it to any one else without the court’s prior written permission. As between Brown, Sr., and Brown, Jr., we agree with the chancellor’s conclusion that the superior equities lie with the father.

Simpson v. Hite

36 Cal. 2d 125 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1950

Council of City of Richmond (1915), 170 Cal. 605 [ 150 P. 977 ]; Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond (1915), 170 Cal. 618 [ 150 P. 982 ]; Hill v. Board of Supervisors (1917), 176 Cal. 84 [ 167 P. 514 ]; Burdick v. … Board of Supervisors (1928), supra, 205 Cal. 262, 270 ; see also Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947), 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ].)

Giles v. Brown County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners

868 N.E.2d 478 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2007

Giles v. Brown County, 839 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005). Brown County sought, and we granted, transfer. Giles v. Brown County, 855 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.2006) (table). … As such, Giles’s claim against Brown County sounds in negligence. 3 In Peavler v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, we observed: Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability.

Zutz v. Nelson

788 N.W.2d 58 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Sep 9, 2010

We have declined to extend absolute privilege from defamation liability to members of subordinate elected government bodies such as city councils and county boards. In Burch v. … In Jones v.

Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.

295 S.W.3d 91 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2009

v. … The only case to directly address the immune status of an airport board is Inco, Ltd. v.

Jones v. Cheney

253 Ark. 926 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 1973

Hickey v. Pittsburgh Pension Board, 378 Pa. 300 , 106 A 2d 233 (1954; W. C. Smith v. City of Dothan et al, 188 So. 2d 532 (1966 Alabama); Board of Trustees of the Police Pension and Retirement System of Tulsa v. … See also Bordens v. Board of Trustees of Judges Retirement System, 174 N.E. 2d 169 (Illinois 1961).

Brown v. Brown

222 Ark. 832 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1953

Mitchell as attorney for the estate of Virginia Brown, it being contended that Mitchell’s services were rendered to the administrator personally rather than to the estate. … Brown died on September 3, 1951, survived by seven children. Five days later a son, Austin Brown, was named as administrator of the estate. Austin approved certain claims in favor of himself and of one of his sisters.

Brown v. Brown

854 P.2d 732 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1993

In re Estate of Lucien Couture

166 N.H. 101 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Feb 21, 2014

Brown ex rel. Estate of Sanger v. Wright, 511 F. Supp. 2d 850, 853 (E.D. Mich. 2007). … Id.; see Kickham Hanley PC v.

Brown v. Brown

213 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 1948

Brown did not have his glasses. Mrs. Brown handed Mr. Brown his glasses. Witness read the deed to Mr. Brown several times as he did not understand the habendum clause. … Brown sign the deed, but did not hear him give any instructions about it. It is essential to the valadity of a deed not only that it be executed, but it is required also that it be delivered. In the case of Cleveland v.