Case law

Brown v. Brown

261 La. 1067 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 25, 1972

In re: Ronald Brown applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 260 So.2d 66 . Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

BROWN AND BROWN, INC. v. Blumenthal

288 Conn. 646 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Sep 9, 2008

This appeal arises from an action seeking injunctive, declaratory and equitable relief brought by the plaintiff, Brown and Brown, Inc., against the defendant, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in connection with a subpoena … For purposes of convenience, references herein to the plaintiff are to Brown and Brown, Inc., and references to the defendant are to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 30 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2005

In Brown v. … (Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d 52, 56 .) In Brown , no separation of powers issue was raised or decided.

County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co.

75 Ill. 2d 494 · Illinois Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1979

and (2) Are Board Rules 503(a) and 205(j) valid? Both of these questions have been decided adversely to the Board and the Village by this court’s recent decision in Landfill, Inc. v. … (Town of Cicero v. Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 10, 18 ; Stryker v. Village of Oak Park (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 523, 527 ; Paglini v. Police Board (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 233, 235 ; Mulligan v.

Speight v. United States

671 A.2d 442 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1996

See Cauthen v. United States, 592 A.2d 1021, 1022 (D.C.1991); Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991). … See Brown, 590 A.2d at 1015 .

Brown v. Brown

209 So. 2d 622 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1968

BRADY, Justice: The issues in this case are governed completely by the decisions in the following cases: Towles v. Towles, 243 Miss. 59 , 137 So.2d 182 (1962) ; Kincaid v. … Kincaid, 213 Miss. 451 , 57 So.2d 263 (1952); De Marco v. De Marco, 199 Miss. 165 , 24 So.2d 358 (1946); Moore v. Moore, 163 Miss. 15 , 140 So. 526 (1932) ; and Ramsay v.

Chemaik v. Brown

364 Or. 849 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 2019

O'CONNOR v. City of Rockford

52 Ill. 2d 360 · Illinois Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1972

Apparently, in adopting Rule 2.01 the Department of Public Health was cognizant of our decision in Heft v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 31 Ill.2d 266 . … In City of Des Plaines v. Metropolitan San.

Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez

68 N.M. 271 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1961

State v. … Riddle v. Brown (1852) 20 Ala. 412 , 56 Am.Dec. 202, 9 Mor.Min.Rep. 219; Riffel v. Letts (1916) 31 Cal.App. 426 , 160 Pac. 845 ; McLean v. Colf (1918) 179 Cal. 237 , 176 Pac. 169 ; Wharton v.

Brown v. State ex rel. Brown

44 Ind. 222 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1873

Price v. The Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 58 ; Kiser v. The State, 13 Ind. 80 ; Hillis v. Wilson, 13 Ind. 146 ; The Peoria, etc., Insurance Co. v. Walser, 22 Ind. 73 ; Holdridge v. … Sweet, 23 Ind. 118 ; Sayres v. Linkhart, 25 Ind. 145 ; Nelson v. Myers, 34 Ind. 431 ; Prince v. The State, ex rel. Sage, 42 Ind. 315 .

Geo. Seligson & Co. v. Brown & Brown

61 Tex. 180 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1884

We do not, however, undertake to decide whether or not any application of these notes would have saved the sale to Brown & Brown from being held fraudulent. … Avery v. Johann, 27 Wis., 246 ; Green v. Gantum, 19 N. J. Eq., 105; Gregory v. Harrington, 33 Vt., 241 . It has been held to the contrary in Mississippi (Farmers’ Bank v.

Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder

285 P.3d 986 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 10, 2012

v. … Co. v.

Winter v. Brown Ex Rel. Brown

365 A.2d 381 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1976

In Wood v. … In Abbe v.

Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama

102 So. 3d 368 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 25, 2012

In Vaughan v. … In Lee v.

State v. Byrd

178 Wash. 2d 611 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2013

Murphy v. Brown, 83 Wash. 100, 105-06 , 145 P. 69 (1914)). And in State v. … State, 367 Md. 447 , 788 A.2d 646, 655 (2002) (lunch bag); State v. Ellis, 355 S.W.3d 522, 524-25 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (backpack); People v. Brown, 36 A.D.3d 931 , 828 N.Y.S.2d 550, 551 (2007) (backpack); People v.

Brown & Brown Coal Co. v. Antezak

164 Mich. 110 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1910

D. 1908, by Louis Ott, one of the justices *112 of the peace in and for the county of Wayne, in favor of the above-named Brown & Brown Coal Company, as plaintiff, and against the above-bounden Stanislaus Antezak, as defendant … In Holyoke v. Adams, 10 N. B.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Humphrey

246 Md. 492 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1967

See also Keyworth v. … Co. v. Continental Cas.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson

816 So. 2d 1 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 5, 2001

Co. v. City of Hartselle , 460 So.2d 1219 , 1225 (Ala. 1984); Darks Dairy, Inc. v. Alabama Dairy Comm'n , 367 So.2d 1378 , 1380 (Ala. 1979). The Court is not at liberty to rewrite statutes, Reed v. … Board of Trustees for Alabama State Univ ., 778 So.2d 791 , 794 (Ala. 2000), or "to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature." Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v.

People v. Brown

28 N.Y.3d 392 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2016

People v Brown In November 2006, defendant James Brown was charged with two counts of robbery in the first degree, and subsequently was indicted on those charges. … People v Brown In Brown, the People were not ready for trial on July 9, 2007 and requested an adjournment to July 23, 2007. The court adjourned the case to August 8, 2007.

Commonwealth ex rel. Judicial Conduct Board v. Griffin

591 Pa. 351 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2007

V, §■ 18(a)(7) (setting forth the investigative tools of the Judicial Conduct Board); Art. Y, § 18(b)(5) (describing the functions of the Court of Judicial Discipline); Art. … Nothing in this opinion speaks to the authority of the Judicial Conduct Board to move forward with a complaint against Judge Griffin in its capacity as outlined in Pa. Const, art. V§ 18.