Case law

State v. Brown

225 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 2009

In State v. Stubbs, 193 Or App 595, 604 , 91 P3d 774 (2004), we explained that ORS 138.050(1) “embodies a jurisdictional limitation on appeal.” … See, e.g., State v. Zell, 89 Or App 394 , 749 P2d 1196 (1988) (reaching same result under earlier version of ORS 138.050). Appeal dismissed. 1 Defendant received a deferred sentence pursuant to the plea agreement.

Brown v. Barse

10 A.D. 444 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1896

(See Brown v. Barse, 3 App. Div. 257 .) The defendant was not present at the trial under review upon this appeal. … (Bleecker v. Johnston, 69 N. Y. 309 ; Wylde v. Northern. R. R. Co. of N. J., 53 id. 156, and see Woodruff v. Hurson, 32 Barb. 564 .) This was attempted in the present case by the examination of Mr. William H.

Gainer v. Brown

558 N.E.2d 867 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1990

They assert that "the Law required that persons who hold substantial interest of public record in Real Estate be given notice [of the pending tax sale]," citing Mennonite Board of Missions v. … In Mullane v.

People v. Brown

622 P.2d 573 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1980

Defendant, Melvin Brown, appeals from a conviction by a jury of arson in the first and fourth degrees. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. … In People v.

Brown v. Commonwealth

326 S.W.3d 469 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Oct 22, 2010

Because the court believed the Parole Board had the authority to determine the exact amounts owed and the appropriate payees, the court did not specify what amount Brown owed or to whom. … In addition to Cardwell , Brown cites to Viers v. Commonwealth, 52 S.W.3d 527 (Ky.2001). In Viers , the trial court stated in court that it was giving Viers credit for time served.

Ryan v. Brown

51 Misc. 67 · Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Jun 15, 1906

Buchsbaum v. Feldman, 43 Misc. Rep. 85 ; Lissner v. Cohen, 49 id. 272. The order is reversed, with costs. Present: Gildersleeve, Leventritt and McCall, JJ. Order reversed, with costs.

Brown v. State

123 So. 3d 1176 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 29, 2013

Brown v. State

69 So. 3d 316 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 17, 2011

Citing to Machado v. … Strickland v.

Brown v. Keefe

255 A.D.2d 971 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 13, 1998

Co. v Jennings, 195 AD2d 541, 542 ). The record establishes that Michael Keefe drove the vehicle only once, on the day of the accident. … That is insufficient to establish that Michael Keefe had “ ‘regular use’ ” of the vehicle (Hollander v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD2d 380, 384 , lv denied 44 NY2d 646 ).

Brown v. Teitelbaum

15 Brief Times Rptr. 1574 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1991

See State v. Young, supra. … In Antonopoulos v.

Brown v. State

22 Ala. App. 290 · Alabama Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1928

Cook v. State, 17 Ala. App. 347 , 85 So. 823 ; Brown v. State, 108 Ala. 18 , 18 So. 811 ; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124 , 53 So. 283 . … The evidence in this case took a wide range, showing the separation of Brown and his wife and Mrs.

State v. Brown

171 Mo. 477 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1903

[Griffin v. State, 4 Tex. App. 390.] The overshadowing question in this case is as to the existence of the relation of principal and agent, between the prosecuting witness Hardwick, and the defendant, J. L. Brown. … [Enterprise Soap Works v. Sayers, 55 Mo. App. 15 ; Chapman v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 542 .] In the first mentioned case, the contract of rescission was deduced from correspondence.

Brown v. State

374 So. 2d 391 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Feb 20, 1979

John v. State , 18 Ala. … . — Tucker v. Henniker , 41 N.H. 317 ; Berry v. State , 10 Ga. 511 ; Mitchum v. State , 11 Ga. [615] 628."

Weller v. Brown

398 So. 2d 551 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1979

Earl Mae WELLER v. Margie BROWN, d/b/a Cattleman's Restaurant et al. No. 12968. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. December 27, 1979. *553 C. Kris Kirkpatrick, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee Ms. … Tantillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, supra ; Frantz v. Schroeder, supra ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, 23 So.2d 661 (La.App. Orl. Cir. 1945)."

People v. Brown

47 A.D.2d 930 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1975

People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Douglas T. Brown v. William A. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Apr 3, 2014

BROWN v. WILLIAM A. BROWN, et al. On December 23, 2013, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. On January 23, 2014, defendant Douglas T. … See Couch v. United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). Brown filed his notice of appeal 31 days after entry of the order she seeks to challenge.

Brown v. State

746 So. 2d 545 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 10, 1999

In this appeal from his conviction and sentence for felony petit theft, Leonard Brown raises two issues, the first of which, an evidentiary question, has no merit. We write only to note that the second issue Mr. … Brown has raised, concerning his habitual offender sentencing, has been disposed of in an independent appeal, Brown v. State, 744 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, this matter is affirmed.

Brown v. Byrd

512 S.W.2d 758 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 25, 1974

This case is related to Cause No. 773, Brown v. Byrd, Tex.Civ.App., 512 S.W.2d 753 , in which the opinion of this Court is delivered this date. … Abrams v. Ross’ Estate, 250 S.W. 1019 (Tex.Comm.App.,1923); Matt v. Ward, 255 S.W. 794 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth, 1923, writ ref’d); Faris v. Faris, 138 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas, 1940, writ ref’d). Faris v.

Brown v. State

689 So. 2d 448 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 19, 1997

People v. Brown

134 A.D.3d 554 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 17, 2015

Defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest … Unlike the situation in People v Mox ( 20 NY3d 936 [2012]), there was nothing in the plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential psychiatric defense.