Case law

Brown v. Zuzierla

73 A.D.3d 765 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2010

Smith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2008]; Matter of Hyde v King, 47 AD3d 813 [2008]; Matter of Bermeo v Rios … AD3d at 814 ; see Matter of Louise E.S. v W.

Brown v. Odom

425 S.C. 420 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Sep 19, 2018

See Buist v. … McClurg v.

State v. Brown

2019 Ohio 1235 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2019

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-1235.] … Id., quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978). 2 In State v. Brown, 8th Dist.

Brown v. Bauman

42 A.D.3d 390 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 26, 2007

Bauman, a solo practitioner and board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist who treated plaintiff Sheila Brown during her pregnancy, was unexpectedly late in proceeding from his home to the hospital to attend his patient’s … Brown so as to be able to diagnose the third/fourth degree laceration . . . Mrs. Brown should have then been referred to a qualified colorectal surgeon so that the appropriate repair could then he attempted.”

State v. Brown

2025 Ohio 2018 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2025

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2018.] … State v. Moore, 2012-Ohio-4483 (5th Dist.) ¶ 16. The applicable standard of review in this matter is abuse of discretion. State v. Calderon, 2010-Ohio- 2807, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.).

Shisgal v. Brown

21 A.D.3d 845 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 2005

Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 526-527 [1999]), it is clear that plaintiff stated claims on several theories. … Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 529 [1999], supra; see also Parsons & Whittemore v Abady Luttati Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, 309 AD2d 665 [2003]).

Brown v. Smith

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Jul 2, 2018

(See McAllister v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408 , 414, 71 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 445 P.2d 313 ["Matters of scientific certainty are subject to judicial notice."]; Gould v. … Mingo County Board of Education (4th Cir. 2011) 419 Fed.Appx. 348 , 353 [West Virginia's mandatory immunization program withstands strict scrutiny].)

Brown v. State

912 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2009

United States v. Sherman, 268 F.3d at 546 . Finally, it seems clear that the child pornography industry would not exist but for patrons such as Brown. See United States v. … Brown did not object to the amendment in this regard. 12 . Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar analysis. See State v. Rhoades, 690 N.W.2d 135 (Minn.App.2004); State v.

Brown v. Mudry

55 A.D.3d 828 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 21, 2008

Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]; Matter of Romanello v Davis, 49 AD3d 652, 653 [2008]; Vujovic v Vujovic, *829 16 AD3d 490, 491 [2005]; Matter of Laland v Edmond, 13 AD3d 451 [2004]). … Lesesne v Lesesne, 292 AD2d 510 [2002]; McKinley v McKinley, 79 AD2d 603 [1980]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Brown v. State

90 So. 3d 645 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jun 12, 2012

We affirmed, finding that Brown’s PCR motion was time-barred. See Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1269 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). … In 2010, we handed down Parker v. State, 47 So.3d 732 (Miss.Ct.App.2010), which bears great factual similarity to Brown’s case.

People v. Brown

67 A.D.3d 1369 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 13, 2009

The prosecutor’s comments on summation were fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Seeler, 63 AD3d 1595, 1596 [2009]). … We reject that contention, inasmuch as such an objection and motion would have had no chance of success (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Francis, 63 AD3d 1644 [2009]).

State v. Brown

2022 Ohio 1917 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2022-Ohio-1917.] … . {¶1} On April 18, 2022, Appellant, Roy Wilton Brown, filed a pro se App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal in State v. Brown, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 21 BE 0012, 2022-Ohio-893.

People v. Brown

2016 IL App (4th) 140760 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jan 18, 2017

Brown, 2016 IL App (4th) 140760 Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Caption ANTHONY S. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. District & No. … Brown, appeals the second-stage dismissal of his amended petition for postconviction relief.

Myers v. Brown

192 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2011

[Cite as Myers v. Brown, 192 Ohio App.3d 670, 2011-Ohio-892.] … Loyd v.

People v. Brown

46 A.D.3d 949 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2007

, 37 AD3d 863, 865 [2007]; People v Jiminez, 36 AD3d 962, 965 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 947 [2007]). … Russell, 41 AD3d at 1095-1096 ; People v Moore, 17 AD3d 786, 789 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 792 [2005]).

State v. Brown

2023 Ohio 3906 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2023

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-3906.] … See, State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 319, 528 N.E.2d 523 (1988).

Brown v. State

127 So. 3d 825 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 27, 2013

Brown’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed without prejudice for Brown to file a motion under rule 3.801. … See Barnes v. State, 74 So.3d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Griffin v. State, 828 So.2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). It appears that Brown is scheduled for release on January 26, 2014.

State v. Brown

2020 Ohio 971 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2020

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2020-Ohio-971.] … State v. Brown, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2017-09-010, 2018-Ohio-3338; State v.

Chrismon v. Brown

246 S.W.3d 102 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jan 10, 2008

Co. v. … Co. v.

Brown v. Muniz

61 A.D.3d 526 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 2009

Afghani v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 45 AD3d 511 [2007]; Sheppeard v Murci, 306 AD2d 268 [2003]; Wolf v We Transp., 274 AD2d 514 [2000]; Miller v Sisters of Order of St. … “Any contention by the injured plaintiff that [the driver] failed to observe what he should have observed is merely an attempt ‘to ferret out speculative issues *528 to get the case to the jury’ ” (Brown v City of New York