Case law

Jaffe v. Brown-Jaffe

98 A.D.3d 898 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 2012

Instead, it should have fixed a charging lien based upon the account stated (see Tunick v Shaw, 45 AD3d 145, 149 [1st Dept 2007]; Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d at 250 ). … Since the record here does not show that there has been a final judgment in this action, the law firm’s request for a money judgment was properly denied (see Squitieri v Squitieri, 77 AD3d 428, 428 [2010]).

Stark v. Brown

210 S.W. 811 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 10, 1919

In support of this rule, he cites the following Texas cases: Stafford v. King, 30 Tex. 257 , 94 Am. Dec. 304 ; Cullers v. Platt, 81 Tex. 258 , 16 S. W. 1003 ; Tate v. Betts, 97 S. W. 707 . In Tate v. … In Waldin v. Smith, 76 Iowa, 652 , 39 N.

People v. Brown

44 Mich. App. 402 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1973

Brown was arrested shortly after Mr. Curtis. He chose to plead not guilty, and that is why we are here, having a trial.” … In People v Ramsey, 385 Mich 221 (1971), the Court held that a trial judge, sitting without a jury and as the trier of fact, should not refer to the transcript of the preliminary examination.

Cobb v. Brown

368 Ill. App. 3d 1211 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 22, 2006

App.3d 1211 COBB v. BROWN. No. 1-05-1889. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. November 22, 2006. Affirmed.

Johnston v. Brown

290 S.C. 141 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Sep 2, 1986

Coens v, Marousis, 275 Pa. 478 , 119 A. 549 (1923). … United States Potash *149 Co. v. McNutt, 70 F. (2d) 126 (10th Cir. 1984); Atkins v. County of Barnstable, 97 Mass. 428 (1867); Higgins v. Desert Braemer, Inc., 219 Cal. App. (2d) 744, 33 Cal.

Brown v. Mataska

262 S.W. 932 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 3, 1924

Brown recovered a judgment in the justice court against Chas. … I was still county clerk when the application for certiorari in the case of Brown v. Mataska was filed in the county court. My file mark appears upon the application for writ of certiorari.

State v. Brown

163 Mo. App. 30 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1912

The information charged “that said defendants Pete Brown, Dick Wilkins, Wm. … [State v. Torphy, 66 Mo. App. 434 .]

Brown v. State

24 Ga. App. 774 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 24, 1920

See Whitten v. State, 47 Ga. 298 ; Loeb v. Jennings, 133 Ga. 796, 801 ( 67 S. E. 101 , 18 Ann. Cas. 376); Coppage v. State, 4 Ga. App. 696 ( 62 S. … Under this view the reasoning in Cole v. State, 2 Ga. App. 734, 738 ( 59 S. E. 24 ), would not apply. The doctrines pronounced in McDonald v. Ludowici, 3 Ga. App. 654, 656 ( 60 S. E. 337 ), and Johnson v. Atlanta, 6 Ga.

State v. Brown

42 So. 3d 458 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2010

See State v. Brown, 45,138 (La.App.2d Cir.10/15/09), 38 So.3d 894 . On remand, the hearing on the motion to suppress was reopened and defendant testified regarding the arrest and search. … In State v. Brown, supra, this court found the search and seizure to be legal based upon the record before us at that time. On remand defendant testified at the reopened hearing on the motion to suppress.

State v. Brown

122 Wash. App. 1048 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 2, 2004

Brown v. Bell

37 Ga. App. 818 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 7, 1928

Civil Code [of 1895], § 2974; Souter v. Bank, 94 Ga. 713 ( 20 S. E. 111 ).” Jordan v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 5 Ga. App. 244 (2) ( 62 S. E. 1024 ).

Brown v. State

33 Ala. App. 569 · Alabama Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1947

Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 ; Johnson v. Williams, Warden, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 ; Skipper v. Schumacher, 124 Fla. 384 , 169 So. 58 ; Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 , 158 So. 153 ; Lamb v. … v.

People v. Brown

186 A.D.2d 142 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 14, 1992

By dropping the plastic bag and walking away, the defendant abandoned it (see, People v McCants, supra; People v Thomas, 161 AD2d 1167 ; People v Kosciusko, 149 AD2d 620 ). … 176 NY 84, 94 ; see also, People v Nieves, 143 AD2d 229 ; People v Storm, 114 AD2d 477 ).

Brown v. State

896 So. 2d 1136 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2005

BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana. Reid Butler and R & F Rolloff and Disposal, Inc. v. State of Louisiana through Department of Transportation and Development. Nos. 04-CA-912, 04-CA-913. … This Court, in Woodbury v.

Brown v. Lambert

371 Ill. App. 3d 1228 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 28, 2007

App.3d 1228 BROWN v. LAMBERT. No. 5-06-0288. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District. March 28, 2007. Affirmed.

State v. Brown

716 S.W.2d 436 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1986

State v. Brown, 708 S.W.2d 140 (Mo. banc 1986). Having decided that, the Supreme Court retransferred the case to us for disposition of defendant’s contentions “(b)” and “(c).” Id. at 147 . … State v. Quinn, 594 S.W.2d 599, 602-03 [7] (Mo. banc 1980). Judgment affirmed. PREWITT, P.J., and HOGAN, FLANI-GAN and MAUS, JJ., concur. . According to defendant, the declaration was made on remand following Brown v.

State v. Brown

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 16, 2023

State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). … State v. Lierman, supra.

People v. Brown

371 Ill. App. 3d 1200 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 2, 2007

App.3d 1200 PEOPLE v. BROWN. No. 1-05-2815. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. March 2, 2007. Aff'd as mod.

State v. Brown

2003 La.App. 4 Cir. 0732 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2003

State v. Lee, 2002-1793, pp. 47-49, 844 So.2d 970, 999-1000 . In State v. … Also, in State v.

Brown v. Keating

182 A.D.2d 552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 3, 1992

To interpret such a sale as having realized a "net profit”, as the husband does, would leave the term "net” meaningless (see, Two Guys v S.F.R. Realty Assocs., *553 63 NY2d 396, 403 ). … For the reason that the husband had no right to engage in a self-help remedy (King v King, 159 AD2d 347 ), the IAS court properly awarded the wife counsel fees necessary to enforce the stipulation (Holliday v Holliday, 58