Clear

10000 search results for query brief


Citation: 292 Mich. 529, 290 N.W. 895 | Docket No.: Docket No. 104, Calendar No. 40,790.
Status: Published | Citing: 4
Summary: {'text': ["While in the employ of defendant General Concrete Construction Company on April 27, 1938, plaintiffs' decedent, Levi Brief, injured his right middle finger", 'By May 9th, Brief had developed a sore throat and there was still a small amount of pus in the finger, and on May 13th he died of bronchial pneumonia.', 'The opinion of the department directs our attention to testimony that after the accident Brief was unable to sleep nights and slept only a few hours during'], 'title': ['Brief v. Concrete Const. Co.']}


Citation: 54 F.2d 497 | Docket No.: 158
Status: Published | Citing: 6
Summary: {'text': ['BRIEF ENGLISH SYSTEMS, Inc. In re OWEN. No. 158. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 7, 1931. *498 Arthur A.', 'The bill set forth that the complainant was a Delaware corporation and that the defendant, Brief English Systems, was a New York corporation indebted to', 'Carlos Israels, of the firm of White & Case, who were the solicitors for Brief English Systems, had represented to Judge Manton that Brief English Systems'], 'title': ['Kingsport Press v. Brief English Systems']}


Citation: 60 Cal. App. 3d 462, 131 Cal. Rptr. 515 | Docket No.: 15721
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: {'text': ['Rptr. 515 KENDALL-BRIEF COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; MARGARET S.', 'OPINION FOGG, J.[*] Kendall-Brief Company ("petitioner") has petitioned this court for a writ of mandate commanding the respondent Orange County Superior'], 'title': ['Kendall-Brief Co. v. Superior Court']}


Docket No.: 10-2580
Status: Unpublished | Citing: 18
Summary: {'text': ['10-2580-cv\nBrief v.', 'Brief\n\nchallenges the district court’s determination that he is not disabled within the meaning of these\n\nstatutes and that the Defendants did not deny', 'Federal Claims\n\n As a preliminary matter, because Brief has now graduated from medical school, received his\n\nM.D., and is participating in (or has'], 'title': ['Brief v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine']}


Citation: 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 3, 65 Cal. App. 4th 364 | Docket No.: G017043
Status: Published | Citing: 10
Summary: {'text': ['Before arbitration took place, however, Koziol and Stein-Brief engaged in settlement negotiations which Stein-Brief claimed resulted in an enforceable', 'Chris Dickson bought a lot in Ritz Cove, another Stein-Brief residential development.', 'In August 1992, Stein-Brief filed a declaratory relief action.'], 'title': ['Stein-Brief Group v. Home Indem. Co.']}


Citation: 242 F.2d 511 | Docket No.: 12116_1
Status: Published | Citing: 2
Summary: {'text': ['242 F.2d 511 PHILADELPHIA BRIEF CASE CO., a Partnership Comprising William Finkelstein, Joseph Finkelstein, Leonard Kolker (Plaintiffs), Appellants, Edward', 'J., on the brief), for appellants. Norman N. Popper, Newark, N. J., for appellee. Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.'], 'title': ['Philadelphia-brief-case-co-a-partnership-comprising-william-finkelstein']}


Citation: 139 Minn. 358, 166 N.W. 413 | Docket No.: No. 20,726.
Status: Published | Citing: 1
Summary: {'text': ['Flint, and one Edwin Irle and together they opened up a brief printing shop in that city, later forming a copartnership, and thereafter conducted the same', 'Paul company had therefore prior rights to the particular name, and in recognition thereof the new company adopted the name "Twin City Brief Printing Company'], 'title': ['Twin City Brief Printing Co. v. Review Pub. Co.']}


Citation: 145 F. Supp. 425 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 325-55
Status: Published | Citing: 13
Summary: {'text': ['Supp. 425 (1956) PHILADELPHIA BRIEF CASE COMPANY et al., Plaintiff, v. SPECIALTY LEATHER PRODUCTS CO., Inc., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 325-55.', 'This patent case for infringement brought by the Philadelphia Brief Case *427 Company, a partnership, as plaintiff, hereinafter called "Philadelphia",'], 'title': ['Philadelphia Brief Case Co. v. Specialty Leather P. Co.']}


Citation: 261 F.2d 136 | Docket No.: 25007_1
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: {'text': ['STANDARD BRIEF CASE CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee. No. 27. Docket 25007. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.', 'extent repetitive, and the appellant concedes that claims 1 and 6, set out in the margin, fairly describe the claimed invention.1 The patent is upon a brief', "The patentee's first broadly stated claims to a brief case with a detachable carrier and binder were rejected after consideration of Krick, No. 504,840"], 'title': ['Savoy Leather Manufacturing Corporation v. Standard Brief Case Co., Inc.']}


Citation: 556 So. 2d 1114 | Docket No.: 74166
Status: Published | Citing: 7
Summary: {'text': ['556 So. 2d 1114 (1990) In re ORDER OF the FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL REGARDING BRIEF FILED IN FORRESTER V. STATE. No. 74166.', 'court, not satisfied that counsel\'s brief complied with the dictates of Anders,[3] ordered counsel to file a supplemental brief on the issue of "`whether', 'We further agree that, [i]f appellate counsel wishes to file a brief in conformance with the dictates of Anders, the brief should make such argument as'], 'title': ['In RE ORDER OF FIRST DIST. CT. OF APPEAL REGARDING BRIEF FILED IN FORRESTER v. State']}


Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: {'text': ['The Effect of an Appropriations Rider on the Authority of the\n Justice Department to File a Supreme Court Amicus Brief\n\n\nA rid er in the 1990 appropriations', 'No. 101-162, 103 Stat. 988 (1989) forbids the Department of Justice from\nfiling an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Metro BroadcastingInc. v.', 'The Solicitor General authorized Civil Rights to file an informational\namicus brief with the court of appeals,5 and such a brief was in fact filed.6'], 'title': ['The Effect of an Appropriations Rider on the Authority of the Justice Department to File a Supreme Court Amicus Brief']}


Docket No.: 251 Appellate Procedural Rules Docket
Status: Published
Summary: {'text': ['(3) [a reply brief shall not exceed 7,000 words] In capital direct appeals, the\n principal brief shall not exceed 17,500 words and a reply brief', 'Official Note\n\n A principal brief is any party’s initial brief and, in the case of a cross appeal, the\nappellant’s second brief, which responds to the', 'A principal brief may not exceed 14,000 words and a reply brief may not\nexceed 7,000 words.']}


Citation: 199 Md. App. 155, 20 A.3d 834 | Docket No.: 354, September Term, 2010
Status: Published | Citing: 8
Summary: {'text': ['On October 6, 2010, Heit filed his brief. On November 5, 2010, Stansbury filed her brief.', 'brief.', "P. 31(a) provides for filing of a reply brief within 14 days of the filing of the appellee's brief. The state's last brief was nearly 80 days late."]}


Docket No.: 103, 2014
Status: Published
Summary: {'text': ['The notice of\nbrief delinquency stated that Brodie’s opening brief and appendix were due on\n\nApril 21, 2014 and that if a brief was not filed within seven', 'The notice of\nbrief delinquency stated that Brodie’s opening brief and appendix were due on\nJune 9, 2014 and that if a brief was not filed within seven', 'an extension to file his opening brief']}


Citation: 2017 Ark. 179 |
Status: Published
Summary: {'text': ['of the brief--Brief for Appellant, and the name of the appellant', 'brief within 15 days.', 'brief.']}


Citation: 905 F.2d 386 | Docket No.: 90-1129
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: {'text': ['Brief for Appellant at 2-3, 5, 14, 15, 17 & 33; Brief for Appellee at 44 & 46; Reply Brief for Appellant at 2 & 18.', 'Brief for Appellant at 7; Brief for Appellee at 20 n. 12.', 'Brief for Appellee at 4 n. 5; Reply Brief for Appellant at 5-6 n. 1.']}


Citation: 111 F.3d 883 | Docket No.: 97-1115
Status: Published | Citing: 1
Summary: {'text': ['when it filed its opening brief.', 'order to view the CD-ROM brief.', 'be sought before submitting a CD-ROM brief.']}


Citation: 2014 NV 35 | Docket No.: 56146
Status: Published
Summary: {'text': ['Brief with Excess Pages 11-07891 03/15/2011 Brief Received Opening Brief.', "The clerk of this court shall file the opening brief received via E-Flex on March 15, 2011. 11-08643 03/21/2011 Brief Filed Appellant's Opening Brief.", "10/10/2011 Brief Received Appellant's Reply Brief (via E-Flex)."]}


Citation: 474 Mich. 1014, 708 N.W.2d 372 | Docket No.: 129325
Status: Published
Summary: {'text': ['Standard 4 allows a defendant to file one pro se brief after his or her counsel’s\nbrief has been filed.', 'His third attorney filed a new brief on March 16 that replaced the first attorney’s brief.', 'Some might argue that a defendant is\nentitled to only one pro se brief, even if, as here, (1) that brief became obsolete after the\nfinal attorney’s brief']}


Citation: 200 S.W.3d 905 | Docket No.: CR 03-1251
Status: Published | Citing: 1
Summary: {'text': ['On July 8, 2004, *906 appellant tendered one copy of the brief with a motion to file a belated brief and a motion asking that the brief be duplicated at', "The appellant's brief was due October 28, 2004.", 'On November 8, 2004, appellant tendered two separate items entitled "Appellant\'s Brief" and "Brief in Support."']}