Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 313,007+ US court opinions imported from the Caselaw Access Project — Supreme Court, federal circuits, and state high courts. Filter by practice area, state, outcome, and connect with the attorneys who tried them.
Latest Opinions · freshly imported court decisions
The most recent court rulings now available in the library. Click through for the full opinion, the attorneys involved, and related cases.
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.
Commonwealth v. Gomes
Marchese v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth.
Veolia Energy Bos., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos.
Bos. Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court
Commonwealth v. Reyes
United States v. Block
Intellectual Property Cases
2,623 matching opinions . Filter by practice area below, or use the search above for free-text matching against title and syllabus.
Browse by State 28
Browse by Year 40
Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. City of Knoxville
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE, IOWA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. • No. 82. Argued December 11, 12, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. Although under §4S84, Rev. Stat.
Marshall Dental Manufacturing Co. v. Iowa
MARSHALL DENTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. STATE OF IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 104. Argued December 19, 1912. Decided January 6, 1913. Qucere: Whether this court can go behind successive findings of the Secreta
Beach v. United States
BEACH v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 7. Argued October 30, 1912. Decided December 2, 1912. Recitals by the Court of Claims of the documents upon which the claimant’s case alone can rest with a history of the transact
Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. United States
STANDARD SANITARY MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. No. 554. Argued October 15, 16, 17, 1912. Decided November 18, 1912. A trade agreement un
Kindred v. Union Pacific Railroad
KINDRED v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 51. Argued November 9, 1911. Decided June 10, 1912. Under § 2 of the act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, c. 120,-land other . pro
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Wagner Electric & Manufacturing Co.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. WAGNER ELECTRIC AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 179. Argued March 1, 1912. Decided June 7, 1912. Where the infringer has so
Shulthis v. McDougal
SHULTHIS v. McDOUGAL. BERRYHILL v. SHULTHIS. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 156, 157. Argued January 23, 24, 1912. Decided June 7, 1912. Where a petition of intervention is entertained and disposed of
Savage v. Jones
SAVAGE v. JONES, STATE CHEMIST OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA^ No. 68. Argued January 18, 1912. Decided June 7, 1912. Where appellant, as complainant below, attacked a
Stalker v. Oregon Short Line Railroad
STALKER v. OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR to the supreme court oe THE STATE OF IDAHO. No. 225. Argued April 24, 1912. Decided May 27, 1912. The act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 482, c. 152, granting rights of way and station ground
Choate v. Trapp
CHOATE v. TRAPP, SECRETARY OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF OKLAHOMA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA. No. 809. Argued February ?3, 1912. Decided May 13, 1912. There is a broad distinction between the power to abrog
City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
CITY OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, v. CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. APPEAL Prom the circuit court of the united states FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. No. 197. Argued March 7, 8, 1912. Decided May 13, 1912. Under the then con
Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Co.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. HUMBOLDT STEAMSHIP COMPANY. ERROR TO. THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT .OP COLUMBIA. No. 859. Argued April 16, 1912. Decided April 29, 1912. Alaska is a Territory of the
United States v. Société Anonyme Des Anciens Etablissements Caíl
THE UNITED STATES v. SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DES ANCIENS ETABLISSEMENTS CAÍL. SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DES ANCIENS ETABLISSE-MENTS CAIL v. UNITED STATES. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. Nos. 209, 210. Argued March 12, 13, 1912. Decided April 8, 1912. In o
Heckman v. United States
HECKMAN v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 496. Argued October 12, 13, 1911. Decided April 1, 1912. The United States has capacity to maintain a suit to set aside conveyances made by allot
United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad
UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 128, 129. Argued January 26, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. An i
Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 121. Argued January 26, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company is not entitled under the
New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co.
NEW MARSHALL ENGINE COMPANY v. MARSHALL ENGINE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 107. Submitted December 15, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases
Ferris v. Frohman
FERRIS v. FROHMAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ILLINOIS. No. 44. Submitted November 7, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. Although complainant may assert his own common-law copyright to his play, if he alleges that defendant ha
Collins v. Texas
COLLINS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 165. Argued January 25, 26, 1912. Decided February 19, 1912. Where the party attacking the constitutionality of a statute has not suffered, the
Jacobs v. Prichard
JACOBS v. PRICHARD, TRUSTEE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 93. Submitted December 8, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. In allotting Indian lands, Congress can determine the conditions under which they shall be al
Waskey v. Hammer
WASKEY v. HAMMER. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 84. Argued December 7, 1911. Decided January 22, 1912. A discovery of mineral within the limits of a mining claim is essential to its validity; proximit
Lewers & Cooke, Ltd. v. Atcherly
LEWERS AND COOKE, LIMITED, v. ATCHERLY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. No. 69. Argued December 4, 1911. — Decided December 18, 1911. Where one asks the aid of a court of chancery in executing a former decree, he t
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros.
KALEM COMPANY v. HARPER BROTHERS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 26. Argued October 31, November 1, 1911. — Decided November 13, 1911. An exhibition of a series of photographs of persons and things, arr
American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister
AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC COMPANY v. WERCKMEISTER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 115. Argued April 10, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The forfeiture for infringement of copyright prescribed by § 4965, Rev. Stat.
Need an attorney for a case like these?
Browse 7,507+ verified US attorneys whose names appear in real court opinions. Filter by practice area and state to find someone with relevant experience.