Case law

Brown v. Bradlee

156 Mass. 28 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 25, 1892

Crawshaw v. Roxbury, 7 Gray, 374 . Janvrin v. Exeter, 48 N. H. 83. … Wentworth v. Day, 3 Met. 352 . Besse v. Dyer, 9 Allen, 151 . Lancaster v. Walsh, 4 M. & W. 16. Lockhart v. Barnard, 14 M. & W. 674. Thatcher v. England, 3 C. B. 254. Tamer v. Walker, L. R. 1 Q. B. 641; L. R. 2 Q.

Prescott v. Brown

30 Okla. 428 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1911

Thorpe and the' said Washington Brown; and upon said trip the said J. E. … In Pierce v.

Brown v. Scott

25 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Fales v. Hicks, 12 How. Pr. R. 154; Richardson v. Wilton, 4 Sand. 708; Hance v. Rumming, 2 E. D. Smith, 48; Mott v. Burnett, Id. 50; Shearman v. New York Central Mills, 1 Abbott, 187.) … To the same effect is the case of Curtis v. Richards, 9 Cal. 37 , and San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco, Ib. 453.

Brown v. State

577 N.E.2d 221 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1991

Any later statement by Brown is not necessarily tainted by prior inadmissible statements to Schockweiler. Abner v. … Brown contends the trial court erred in admitting the videotape. Lamar v.

Brown v. State

135 Fla. 90 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 18, 1938

See Ward v. State, 83 Fla. 311 , 91 So. 189 ; Yarborough v. State, 94 Fla. 143 , 114 So. 237 ; Jacques v. State, 86 Fla. 137 , 97 So. 380 ; Hall v. State, 70 Fla. 48 , 69 So. 692 ; Maddox v. … Brown, in fact says that he, the said Jack C. Brown, and the said Jack C.

Russell v. Brown

63 Me. 203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

Holmes v. Wilson, 10 A. & E., 503. “A recovery of damages for a nuisance to land,” remarks Patterson, J., “will not prevent another action for *205 continuing it.” In Bowyer v. Cook, 4 M., G. & S., 236, (56 E. C. … In Loweth v. Smith, 12 M. & W., 582, Parke, B., says: “But staying and continuing in a house appears to be a divisible trespass in point of time ; there is a fresh trespass on each day.”

Meyer v. Brown

256 Va. 53 · Supreme Court of Virginia · Jun 5, 1998

CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 971876 June 5, 1998 REGINALD D. BROWN FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND James B. … Gomes v. City of Richmond, 220 Va. 449, 452, 258 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1979). Regular action is more frequent than casual or occasional action.

Brown v. Zimmerman

61 Kan. App. 2d 537 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Feb 4, 2022

v. … In State v. Wright, 26 Kan.

State v. Brown

717 So. 2d 625 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 25, 1998

717 So.2d 625 (1998) STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harold Lloyd BROWN, Jr., Appellee. No. 98-719. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. September 25, 1998. *626 Robert A. … Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). A guidelines sentence must be imposed, or alternatively, Brown may withdraw his plea. State v. McGriff, 698 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). REVERSED and REMANDED.

Brown v. State

121 Tex. Crim. 528 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 27, 1932

See, also, Blake v. State, 3 Texas App., 581; Gose v. State, 6 Texas App., 121; McClendon v. State, 101 Texas Crim. Rep., 128 , 274 S. W., 159 ; Chastain v. State, 97 Texas Crim. Rep., 182 , 260 S. W., 172 . … See Jarman v. State, 112 Texas Crim. Rep., 239 , 16 S. W. (2d) 130 ; Arcos v. State, 120 Texas Crim. Rep., 315 , 29 S. W. (2d) 395 .

People v. Brown

174 Colo. 513 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 17, 1971

The officer, *516 upon talking to Brown, noticed a distinct odor of alcohol and, upon Brown’s failure to satisfactorily perform certain sobriety tests, Brown was arrested and taken to the Adams County jail for further investigation … In People v.

Brown v. Shiner

84 Tex. 505 · Texas Supreme Court · May 3, 1892

We have not under consideration the precise question that was before the court in Smisson v. The State. … Supreme Court in Swenson v.

People v. Brown

929 N.W.2d 375 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2019

Commonwealth v. Brown

200 A.3d 943 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2019

State v. Brown

128 Iowa 24 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 7, 1905

Keene, 26 Me. 33 ; State v. Brown, 68 N. H. 200 ( 38 Atl. 731 ); Chamberlain v. People, 23 N. Y. 85 ( 80 Am. Dec. 255 ); State v. Trask, 42 Vt. 152 ; Crump v. Com., 75 Va. 923 . … State v. Rowell, 72 Vt, 28 ( 47 Atl. 111 , 82 Am. St. Rep. 918 ). 2. Same. V.

People v. Brown

125 A.D.3d 1550 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 2015

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the fact that he was photographed from a closer range did not impermissibly draw attention to his photograph in the array (see People v Brown, 169 AD2d 934, 935 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d … 958 [1991]; see also People v Smiley, 49 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 870 [2008]).

State v. Brown

40 La. Ann. 725 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1888

Henry Brown, the appellant, and several others were jointly indicted for conspiracy and murder. … Before his trial, the case was continued as to one of the defendants, and a nolle prosequi en *727 tered as to the others, confining the trial to Henry Brown alone, who was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death.

People v. Brown

22 Cal. 2d 752 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1943

In People v. … (People v. Bartol, supra, 665 ; see, also, Nichols v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., 178 Cal. 630, 632 [ 174 P. 319 ]; Juchert v. Tenent, 126 Cal.App. 216, 217 [ 14 P.2d 617 ]; Houghton v.

Cunningham v. Brown

18 Vt. 123 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 15, 1846

But the ease of Damport v. Sympson, Cro. Eliz. 520, is precisely the same as this case. Eyres v. Sedgewick, Cro. Jac. 601, is much to the same purpose. … And the fact, that the action is one of new impression, as is said of the case of Damport v. Sympson, is reason enough, why it should not be sustained, except upon the most satisfactory grounds.

Flanagan v. Brown

70 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

blank, and sues upon it in behalf of his principal, it is no defense for the maker to say that the plaintiff in the suit is not the owner, and this, as I understand it, is all that is really decided in the case of Curtiss v. … If his interest is only a right to share the proceeds which result from the execution of his power, the agent has not a power coupled with an interest. “ The case of Brown v.