Case law

Brown v. Brown

300 So. 2d 719 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 10, 1974

300 So.2d 719 (1974) Evelyn BROWN, Appellant, v. Raymond Pierre BROWN, Jr., Appellee. No. T-423. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. September 10, 1974. Rehearing Denied October 15, 1974. *720 W.A. … and EVELYN BROWN are hereby dissolved. "3) The Wife shall have custody of the children of the parties, namely: GREGORY BROWN, STUART BROWN, PRESTON BROWN and ROGER BROWN, and the Husband shall have liberal rights of visitation

Brown v. Brown

260 Neb. 954 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2000

Brown, now known as Cynthia M. … Brown, Jr. (Dwight): Dwight III, born May 27, 1993, and Jasmine, bom February 3, 1995.

Sumner v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 256 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 6, 2001

Brown, 8 Vet.App. 504, 507 (1996), "a Cerullo remand for reconsideration by the Board, prior to the Court's review of the record on appeal or the filing of briefs, does not confer prevailing- party status upon an appellant … Brown, 9 Vet.App. 304, 308 (1996) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds 6 sub nom. Bazalo v. West, 150 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Brown v. Brown

129 Ga. 246 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Aug 12, 1907

In the case of Ring v. Ring, 118 Ga. 183 ( 44 S. E. 861 , 62 L. R. … Odom v. Odom, 36 Ga. 286 . What constitutes cruel treatment in the meaning of the law is a question of law for the court. Gholston v. Gholston, 31 Ga. 628 .

Brown v. Brown

28 Minn. 501 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Dec 23, 1881

In Norton v. … Shaubhut v. Hilton, 7 Minn. 412 , (506;) Keegan v. Peterson, 24 Minn. 1 . Judgment affirmed.

Brown v. Brown

2016 Ark. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 16, 2016

In Farrell v. Farrell, 2013 Ark. … We note in Moore v.

Brown v. Brown

279 S.C. 116 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 4, 1983

Parrott v. Parrott, _S. C._, 292 S. E. (2d) 182 (1982). We cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in this matter. … Recently, in Carter v. Carter, 277 S. C. 277, 286 S. E. (2d) 139 (1982) and Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S. C. 270, 286 S.

Brown v. Brown

88 Conn. 42 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Mar 5, 1914

In Marri v. Stamford Street R. … As we said in Mathewson v.

Brown v. Brown

108 Mass. 386 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1871

The tenant claims title under the will of John Brown, and contends that the demandant’s title is forfeited under that clause. … The case is more like Hathaway v. Crocker, 7 Met. 262 , than like Hubbell v. Bissell, 2 Allen, 196 , and Commonwealth v. Fairbanks, Ib. 511. 4.

Brown v. . Brown

213 N.C. 347 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 1938

J., in Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N. … Lanier, 4 Wallace, 447; Rolfe v. Delmar, 7 Rob., 80 ; Stewart v. Lothrop, 12 Gray, 52 ; Howard v. Harris, 8 Allen, 297 ; Pearce v. Brooks, L. R. 1 Exch., 213; Smith v. White, L. R. 1 Eq. Cases, 626.

Brown v. Brown

132 Ga. 712 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 18, 1909

said necessaries were not furnished by said Oscar Brown, and she was compelled to furnish them in order to maintain said son; that said expenses has been an average of $20 per month, including board, clothing, tuition, medical … See also Seely v. Seely, 116 Mo. App. 362 ( 91 S. W. 979 ); Dolloff v. Dolloff, supra; Ditmar v. Ditmar, 27 Wash. 13 ( 91 Am. St. R. 817 , 67 Pac. 353 ); Zilley v. Dinwiddie, 98 Wis. 428 ( 74 N. W. 126 , 40 L. R.

Brown v. Brown

574 So. 2d 688 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1990

574 So.2d 688 (1990) Betty Louise BROWN v. Ralph Nayland BROWN. No. 90-CA-0071. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 27, 1990. *689 Keith R. Raulston, Heidelberg & Woodliff, Jackson, Darryl A. … Ralph Nayland Brown shall pay to Betty Louise Brown the sum of $6,000.00 in cash as lump sum alimony and said payment to be made within five days of the date hereof, the said Ralph Nayland Brown not be responsible for any

Brown v. Brown

135 Mich. 141 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1903

Brown, containing the provision that the defendant, Calvin S. … Laws, § 8640; Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138 ; North v. North, 39 Mich. 67 ; Swarthout v. Lucas, 102 Mich. 494 ( 60 N. W. 973 ).

Brown v. Brown

174 Mass. 197 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 6, 1899

Spelman v. Aldrich, 126 Mass. 113 . Thomson v. O’Sullivan, 6 Allen, 303 . Marshall v. Jaquith, 134 Mass. 138 . Stimpson v. Achorn, 158 Mass. 342 . … Spelman v.

Brown v. Brown

237 Miss. 53 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1959

Helen Gant Brown, a divorce from her husband, Jake N. Brown, defendantappellee. We affirm that action, and also the denial of separate maintenance. … Brown in a super-market and Mr. Brown as a painter. The mother works .only in the daytime, and can be at home for breakfast and supper with Carol and at night and on weekends.

Brown v. . Brown

121 N.C. 8 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

The action was brought by the plaintiff, Lizzie Brown, wife of J. W. Brown, in her own name, against the defendant, J. R. Brown, the father of her husband. … Heath v.

Brown v. Brown

101 Kan. 335 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Jul 7, 1917

(Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 49 Pac. 527 ; Blair v. Blair, 82 Kan. 464 , 108 Pac. 827 .) After the death of John P. … (Brewick v. Anderson, 267 Ill. 169 ; Baker v. Hibbs, 167 Iowa, 174 ; Dexter v. Attorney General, 224 Mass. 215 .) No part of the estate can be set aside'by reason of the life of William F.

Brown v. Brown

15 Cal. 3d 838 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1976

Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.3d 32, 40-41 [89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ]; cf. Smith v. … , supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 642 ; In re Marriage of Brown (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 188 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 510 ]; Bensing v.

Brown v. Brown

172 Ky. 754 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 15, 1916

Pile v. Pile, 94 Ky. 308 . But that principle does not hold in the present case. … J., section 226, page 133; Zartman v. Waterloo First National Bank, 216 U. S. 134 , 54 L. Ed. 418 . Hence the title acquired by the trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding referred to was subject to Mrs.

Brown v. Brown

123 A.D.3d 596 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 2014

enumerated factors, explained how the factors support an upward deviation from the $13,100 a month in guideline support, and found that $37,000 per month was not “unjust or inappropriate” under the circumstances (Lennox v … The court providently exercised its discretion in making the award of temporary maintenance taxable to the wife (see Lasry *597 v Lasry, 180 AD2d 488, 489 [1st Dept 1992]; Siskind v Siskind, 89 AD3d 832, 833 [2d Dept 2011