Case law

Brown v. Hicks

378 S.W.3d 689 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2011

Judge Brown contends that there is no such statutory requirement. We agree. The basic rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. E.g., Ward v. … Judge Brown objected to the proposed closure of the road. Pursuant to section 14-298-117(c), he, or any other person with an objection had the right to be heard. Citing Freeze v.

Easton v. Brown

170 Mass. 311 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 25, 1898

Batchelder v. Hutchinson, 161 Mass. 462, 467 . … Howard v. Robinson, 5 Cush. 119 . Assuming that the bank would have a right to be heard, it is manifest that it was bound to present its application seasonably. The petition was filed in March, 1896.

Brown v. State

26 So. 3d 581 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 29, 2009

26 So.3d 581 (2009) BROWN v. STATE. No. SC09-1529. Supreme Court of Florida. December 29, 2009. Decision Without Published Opinion Review denied.

Brown v. Olen

226 Ga. 492 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 9, 1970

In Roe v. … Under the rationale of Martin v.

Schmidt v. Brown

33 La. Ann. 416 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 15, 1881

Brown v. Hutchinson

11 Vt. 569 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 15, 1839

Such is the view taken of this subject, by this court, in the case of Spear v. Ditty, 8 Vt. R. 419.

McHenry v. Brown

66 Minn. 123 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Oct 29, 1896

Brown was paid the sum agreed on, $8,887.78. … Although the facts are slightly different, the case is brought directly within the reasoning and the rules found in Robinson v. Hagenkamp, 52 Minn. 101 , 53 N.

People v. Brown

235 Ill. 2d 592 · Illinois Supreme Court · Jan 1, 2010

924 N.E.2d 457 (2010) 235 Ill.2d 592 PEOPLE v. RALPH BROWN. No. 109533. Supreme Court of Illinois. January 1, 2010. Disposition of Petition for Leave to Appeal [*] Denied.

Beirne v. Brown

4 W. Va. 72 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1870

Brown, President. … Rose v. Hime ly, 4 Cranch; Kirk v. Smith, 9 Wheat., 241 ; Reed v. Reed, 5 Call. And in the latter case, Marshall, C.

Brown v. State

929 N.E.2d 781 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 2010

929 N.E.2d 781 (2010) BROWN v. STATE. Supreme Court of Indiana. January 7, 2010. Transfer denied. All Justices concur, except Sullivan and Rucker J.J., who vote to grant transfer.

Bell v. Brown

29 Ga. 212 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Aug 15, 1859

State v. Brown

21 So. 3d 300 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 6, 2009

In re Brown, Kendrelle; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 469-700; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0739. Denied.

Teegardin v. Brown

769 N.W.2d 456 · South Dakota Supreme Court · May 4, 2009

769 N.W.2d 456 (2009) TEEGARDIN v. BROWN. No. 24939. Supreme Court of South Dakota. May 4, 2009. Affirmed (TLT).

State v. Brown

245 La. 112 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 12, 1963

Defendant LeRoy Brown, found guilty by a jury of theft of property having a value of $800.00, was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary at hard labor for three years. He has appealed.

Brown v. Bickel

463 Pa. 242 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

Brown v. Scharff

42 Wash. 2d 50 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1953

State v. Brown

364 So. 2d 130 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 10, 1978

Brown applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish, of Orleans. Writ denied.

Brown v. Keiser

182 Mich. 432 · Michigan Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1914

The most emphatic utterance, perhaps, being found in Meech v. Wilder, 130 Mich. 29 ( 89 N. … Heffron v. Flanigan, 37 Mich. 274 ; Flint, etc., R. Co. v. Gordon, 41 Mich. 420 ( 2 N. W. 648 ); Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185 ( 26 N. W. 426 , 60 Am. Rep. 291 ).

Brown v. State

401 S.W.2d 251 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 9, 1966

Such a contention was overruled in Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 756 .

Brown v. Richmond

27 Vt. 583 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Mar 15, 1855

There is a case in Aiken’s reports, State v.