Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
6.37s
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 25, 1999
Batson v. Batson, 769 S.W.2d 849, 859 (Tenn.App. 1988). A litigant is not necessarily entitled to a share of each item of marital property. Brown v. … Brown.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Governors of the Registered Dentists v. Brown
182 Okla. 243 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 1937
Brown h'ad been con- *244 v-icted of a crime involving turpitude and ordered that he be suspended for two years. … Brown was then of good repute and a man of high character. The board trying Dr.
Cited 3 timesPublishedBrown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson
117 A.D.3d 1506 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 2, 2014
Cited 0 timesPublishedRussell v. Tennessee Department of Correction
99 F. App'x 575 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2004
Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508 , 511 (6th Cir.2001); Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 , 726-27 (6th Cir.1996); Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987); Chapman v. … Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.1989); Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.1975).
Cited 3 timesPublishedFrank Romeo and Connie Yang v. US Bank National Association
144 So. 3d 585 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 30, 2014
Brown v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 117 So. 3d 823, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Section 48.031, Florida Statutes (2013), governs service of process. … See Thompson v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedTonique Griffin v. City of East Orange (074937)
225 N.J. 400 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 22, 2016
State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 147 (2001) (quoting State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484 (1997)). … Lockley v.
Cited 146 timesPublishedGentiva Health Services, Inc. v. Becerra
31 F.4th 766 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 2022
To 14 the extent the Board’s decision is based “on the [text] of the Medicare Act itself, [the court] owe[s] deference [to the Board] under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. … Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 666 (2007) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132–33 (2000)).
Cited 8 timesPublished11 Fla. L. Weekly 67 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 20, 1986
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); Prouse, 440 U.S. at 656-57 , 99 S.Ct. at 1397-98 ; Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 555 , 96 S.Ct. at 3081 ; Terry v. … Brown, 443 U.S. at 50-51 , 99 S.Ct. at 2640-2641 ; State v. Superior Court In & For County of Pima, 143 Ariz. 45 , 691 P.2d 1073 (1984); State v.
Cited 48 timesPublished400 So. 2d 1214 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1981
In McLean v. … Unlike McLean v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedFlores v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
11 Cal. 3d 171 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1974
Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189 [ 323 P.2d 753 ]; People v. … Select Base Materials v.
Cited 23 timesPublished310 So. 2d 461 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 7, 1975
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text135 So. 3d 311 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 5, 2012
.); O’Connor v. O’Connor, 447 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), receded from on other grounds by Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Cited 0 timesPublishedThomas v. First Federal Sav. Bank of Indiana
653 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 6, 1987
As such, First Federal is subject to the constitution and laws of the United States and to all rules, regulations and orders issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“Bank Board”). … The remarks of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board regarding the Board’s regulations and policies in making loans, cited by the court in Laufman , are instructive on this point.
Cited 14 timesPublishedDuley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
44 Ill. 2d 15 · Illinois Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1969
(Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Bd., 284 Ill. 378 , 382 — 3.) Also, this determination is consistent with Moushon v. … (Gaca v. City of Chicago, 411 Ill. 146, 149 .) Gruenwald v.
Cited 24 timesPublishedMichigan Supreme Court · May 21, 2014
BROWN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 148553 … BROWN, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/ On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered,
Cited 0 timesPublished35 Iowa 407 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 11, 1872
The plaintiff boarded at the hotel with the defendants, and knew that they were repairing the premises in controversy for a home. … Elston & Green v. Robertson, 23 Iowa, 208 ; Christy v. Dyer, 14 id. 438; Cole v. Gill, id. 527; Williams v. Swetland, 10 id. 51; Charless & Blow v. Lamberson, 1 id. 435.
Cited 16 timesPublishedCommissioner of Financial Regulation v. Brown, Brown, & Brown, P.C.
449 Md. 345 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 19, 2016
Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Brown, Brown & Brown, P.C., et al. No. 102, September Term 2015 Commercial Law – Maryland Credit Services Business Act – Credit Services Business – Extension of Credit. … See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Commission v.
Cited 8 timesPublished140 Ohio App. 3d 48 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2000
However, the case of Baldasar v. … State v.
Cited 14 timesPublishedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2019
Thus, the Commonwealth Court erred in holding that the Board’s preferred definition of the word “during” was entitled to deference unless it is “clearly erroneous.” See Harmon v. Unemployment Comp. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000))). [J-62-2018] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 3 21, 23; see Chamberlain v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 114 A.3d 385, 395 (Pa. 2015).
Cited 0 timesPublished277 Ga. 594 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Feb 16, 2003
Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 ( 560 SE2d 3 ) (2002). The probate court also found that the will was improperly executed because Bobby Brown’s purported signature was in the wrong place on the will. … Miles v. Bryant, 277 Ga. 362 ( 589 SE2d 86 ) (2003). This error does not affect the probate court’s conclusion that the will is invalid because the purported signature of the testator is a forgery. Johnson v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna