Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
8.00s
65 A.D.2d 936 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 3, 1978
Cited 0 timesPublished12 Ohio Law. Abs. 698 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1932
Brown had left him does not present, we think, a strong case on the part of the plaintiff in error. The deposit, according to the testimony of Mrs. … Brown and that she received the sum above stated from said estate. While this affidavit tends to detract from the testimony of Mrs.
Cited 0 timesPublished230 A.D. 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1930
Order denying motion of defendants Brown and Swasey for leave to serve a conditional cross complaint affirmed, without costs. … the denials contained in their answer, facts showing that tho trustee misappropriated and used in the purchase of the property in question the funds of the trust created for the appellants’ benefit by the will of Augusta Brown
Cited 0 timesPublished237 A.D. 881 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1933
Cited 0 timesPublished148 N.Y.S. 1107 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 5, 1914
Cited 0 timesPublished163 A.D. 961 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1914
Cited 0 timesPublished277 A.D.2d 857 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1950
Cited 0 timesPublished216 A.D. 725 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1926
Cited 0 timesPublished104 N.Y.S. 1123 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 1907
Cited 0 timesPublished3 Shan. Cas. 86 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1879
This canse of Simeon Cornick and wife v. Mary Brown et al. is referred *87 to in- this bill, and asked to be made exhibits and parts thereof. … See [Beeler v. Dunn], 3 Head, 90 , 91. In Roseborough v.
Cited 0 timesPublished34 Tenn. 431 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854
. *435 This action in debt for $1167 86 was instituted in the circuit court of Davidson, by Brown & McCullough, against "Win. L. Brown, the defendant below.
Cited 0 timesPublished12 S.D. 21 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1899
defendants kept and retained said wheat, and failed, refused, and neglected to deliver said wheat to plaintiff, or to pay her the market price therefor. ” After the summons had been served in Hutchinson county on the defendant Brown … As the service upon the defendant Brown was confessedly good, appellant’s motion to dismiss the action would not be entertainable in the absence of the following statute, within *23 which, the case clearly comes: ‘ ‘The summons
Cited 0 timesPublished20 S.C. Eq. 363 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Feb 15, 1847
Brown,” and in his answer to the complainant’s former bill, he not only admits the trust, but indignantly repels the insinuation that he had, at any time, disavowed his fiduciary relation.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna