Case law

Diggins v. Brown

76 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1888

(People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 19 and 20; 21 Am. Rep. 677 .) We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be reversed, with directions to dismiss the action. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

Brown v. Pridgen

56 Tex. 124 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1882

Pridgen and contestant lived some four of five miles from each other; the son of Pridgen went to Brown’s house with a carriage and carried Mrs. Brown home with him, and it was then she made the will. … Phillips heard a conversation between her and Pridgen in regard to Brown’s money and property. Pridgen left to get water; Mrs. Brown was crying at the time, and remarked to Dr. Phillips that she had been persuaded.

Brown v. Warren

16 Nev. 228 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

(Toland v. Mundell, 38 Cal. 43 ; Dilly v. Sherman, 2 Nev. 69 .) In Bludworth v. … (Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 222 ; Baker v. Joseph, 16 Id. 180; Kiler v. Kimbal, 10 Id. 268.) Besides, as was said in Sharon v.

Keyes v. Brown

155 Conn. 469 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 26, 1967

Eastern Color Printing Co. v. Jenks, 150 Conn. 444, 450 , 190 A.2d 591 ; Blake v. Meyers, 145 Conn. 612, 616 , 145 A.2d 584 ; see also Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co., 33 Cal. 2d 564, 573 , 203 P.2d 758 . … Mandeville v. Jacobson, 122 Conn. 429, 433 , 189 A. 596 ; Loveland v. Aymett’s Auto Arcade, Inc., 121 Conn. 231, 236 , 184 A. 376 ; Bitondi v. Sheketoff, 91 Conn. 123, 126 , 99 A. 505 ; 5 Corbin, Contracts §1114.

Salter v. Brown

56 Ga. App. 792 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 27, 1937

L. 295; Hart v. Waldo, 117 Ga. 590, 597 ( 43 S. E. 998 ); Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Beckwith, 4 Ga. App. 245, 249 ( 61 S. E. 149 ); Miller v. Roberts, 9 Ga. App. 511 ( 71 S. E. 927 ).

State v. Brown

236 N.J. 105 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 6, 2018

Brown v. State

127 Fla. 225 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 4, 1937

J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.

State v. Brown

2020 Ohio 5314 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2020

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2020-Ohio-5314.] … Brown has the burden to demonstrate plain error on the record. Rogers at ¶ 22; State v. Little, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

Braun v. Brown

13 Cal. 2d 130 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1939

.; Mack v. Eummelen, 31 Cal. App. 506 [ 160 Pac. 1096 ] ; Kelly v. Smith, 204 Cal. 496, 501 [ 268 Pac. 1057 ].) In the case of Eggers v. … In Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 501, 507 [ 77 Pac. 1109 , 103 Am. St.

Brown v. State

661 So. 2d 95 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 6, 1995

661 So.2d 95 (1995) Devon BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 94-2361. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. September 6, 1995. Rehearing Denied October 26, 1995. *96 Richard L. … See McCain v.

Brown v. James

2 A.D. 105 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1896

(Farmers' National Bank v. Van Slyke, 49 Hun, 7 ; Hart v. Palmer, 12 Wend. 523 .) … Co. v. Church ( 81 N.

Brown v. Gaulke

191 Wis. 347 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1926

Counsel concede that the order extending time to dispose of motions after verdict was null and Void because it set forth no facts showing cause for such extension within the rule stated in Borowics v. … Borowicz v. Hamann, 189 Wis. 212, 220, 221 , 207 N. W. 426, 429, 430 . This conclusion is not in conflict with that reached in Kurath v. Gove Automobile Co. 149 Wis. 390, 392 , 135 N.

State v. Brown

414 S.C. 14 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Sep 23, 2015

In Riley v. … See Futch v.

People v. Brown

265 A.D.2d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 18, 1999

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 21, 1998 (People v Brown, 253 AD2d … The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 ). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Herzog v. Brown

243 N.Y. 599 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1926

Brown v. Coughlin

165 A.D.2d 935 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 20, 1990

We have previously suggested that a deficiency in employee assistance is one which can be corrected during the hearing if the inmate makes a timely complaint (see, Matter of Reveron v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 860, 861 ). … Petitioner’s refusal to select an employee assistant from the list provided him during the adjournment precludes his claim that he was denied the right to employee assistance (see, Matter of Bates v Kelly, 152 AD2d 1009 )

Addison v. Brown

413 So. 2d 1240 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1982

ADDISON, et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Cecil BROWN, Etc., Respondent. No. 82-314. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. April 28, 1982. Rehearing Denied May 19, 1982. Richard G. … We hereby remand this matter to the Honorable Cecil Brown to assess against Richard G.

Brown v. State

659 S.W.2d 499 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 19, 1983

Paulus v. State, 633 S.W.2d 827, 844 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Od-neal v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 34 S.W.2d 595 (1931). … We hold that this record is sufficient to link Brown to the robbery and corroborate McLoud’s accomplice testimony. Meyers v. State (supra), cited by Brown, is distinguishable on its facts from the instant case.

Brown v. Haymore

43 Ariz. 466 · Arizona Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1934

Brown, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Arthur S. Haymore, David F. Haymore, and Walter T. Haymore, as executors of the estate of Franklin D. … Arnett v. Hardwick, 27 Ariz. 179 , 231 Pac. 922 ; Burbage v. Jedlicka, 27 Ariz. 426 , 234 Pac. 32 ; Jenkins v. Skelton, 21 Ariz. 663 , 192 Pac. 249 ; Mindlin v. Jones, 26 Ariz. 401 , 226 Pac. 209 .

Leighton v. Brown

98 Mass. 515 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 15, 1868

Parker v. Simonds, 8 Met. 205 . But it is not admissible in evidence against the present plaintiff, who, as defendant in the replevin action, had no agency in procuring his valuation. Kafer v. Harlow, 5 Allen, 348 . … Swift v. Barnes, 16 Pick. 194 .