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
Gleason v. White
GLEASON v. WHITE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 188. Argued and Submitted March 16, 17, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Two official surveys of a tract of land bordering on navigable waters were, with an interval of th
Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co.
KENDALL v. AMERICAN AUTOMATIC LOOM COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 541. Submitted April 24, 1905 Decided May 29, 1905. This court can review by appeal under § 5 of the a
Leonard v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railroad
LEONARD v. VICKSBURG, SHREVEPORT AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 233. Argued April 26, 27, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. THe rule reiterated that persons may by their acts, or omissions
Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.
CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING COMPANY v. AMERICAN FUR REFINING COMPANY CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 192. Argued March 17, 1905. Decided May 15, 1905. A greater degree of liberality and a wider range of equivale
United States v. Winans
UNITED STATES v. WINANS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 180. Argued April 3, 4, 1905. Decided May 15, 1905. This court will construe a treaty with Indians as they understood it and as
Harding v. Harding
HARDING v. HARDING. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 222. Argued April 20, 1905. Decided May 15, 1905. Pursuant to. the statutes of Illinois, a wife living apart from her husband, both being citizens of Illinois, s
Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley
EMPIRE STATE-IDAHO MINING AND DEVELOPING COMPANY v. HANLEY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 604. Submitted May 1, 1905. Decided May 15, 1905. Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is invoked on the'
Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co.
BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO v. CHRISTIE GRAIN AND STOCK COMPANY. L. A. KINSEY COMPANY v. BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
Schlosser v. Hemphill
SCHLOSSER v. HEMPHILL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 176. Argued March 13, 14, 1905. Decided May 8, 1905. Where the judgment of the highest court of a State, in reversing a judgment against defendant, does not direct
Dunbar v. Green
DUNBAR v. GREEN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 200. Submitted April 6, 1905. Decided May 1, 1905. The guardian of an Indian minor appointed in a county of Kansas, other than that in which the land was situated, gave
Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict
HOWE SCALE COMPANY v. WYCKOFF, SEAMANS & BENEDICT. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 130. Argued January 16, 17, 1905. Decided April 24, 1905. In an action to restrain the use of a personal name in trade
Bonin v. Gulf Co.
BONIN v. GULF COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 50. Argued March 16, 1905. Decided April 24, 1905. In an action of ejectment plaintiff pitched his claim solely on a patent from the United States; defe
Whitaker v. McBride
WHITAKER v. McBRIDE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 135. Submitted January 18, 1905. Decided April 10, 1905. The question of the title of a riparian owner is one of local law, and un~. restricted grants of the Gove
In re Heff
MATTER OF HEFF. ORIGINAL. No. 14. Argued January 9, 10, 1905. Decided April 10, 1905. The recognized relation between the Government and the Indians is that of a superior and an inferior, whereby the latter is placed under the care of the f
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. BARBER ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS' OP THE STATE OP KENTUCKY. No. 170. Argued March 7, 8, 1905. Decided. April 3, 1905. In determining whether an improvement does, or do
Chrisman v. Miller
CHRISMAN v. MILLER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 171. Argued March 8, 1905. Decided April 3, 1905. This court does not.review- questions of fact in cases coming from a state • court but accepts the conclusions
McMichael v. Murphy
McMICHAEL v. MURPHY. -ERROR TO, AND APPEAL FROM, THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. No. 166. Submitted March 7, 1905. Decided April 3, 1905. A settlement or entry on public land already covered of record by another entry, valid
Greer County v. Texas
GREER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA TERRITORY, v. TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' FOR THE THIRD> SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 160. Submitted March 6, 1905. Decided March 20, 1905. The decision in United States v. Texa
Oklahoma City v. McMaster
OKLAHOMA CITY v. McMASTER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 137. Argued January 18, 19, 1905. — Decided February 20, 1905. The review by this court of final judgments in civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Te
Small v. Rakestraw
SMALL v. RAKESTRAW. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OF MONTANA. No. 133. Argued January 18, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. A homestead claimant in a contest in the Land Department admitted he voted in a precinct in Montana other t
Ramsey v. Tacoma Land Co.
RAMSEY v. TACOMA LAND COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT-OP THE,STATE OF4 WASHINGTON. No. 138. Submitted January 17, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. In a remedial statute such as § 5, act'of March 3,1887, 24 Stat. 557,.enabling bona fide
Creede & Cripple Creek Mining & Milling Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Co.
CREEDE AND CRIPPLE CREEK MINING AND MILLING COMPANY v. UINTA TUNNEL MINING AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 18. Argued April 15, 18, 1904.—Reargued January 10,
United States v. Harvey Steel Co.
UNITED STATES v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 275. Argued January 3, 4, 1905.— Decided January 16, 1905. The United States made a contract with the steel company, for the'use of a process described as patented.
Scott v. Carew
SCOTT v. CAREW. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 52. Argued November 7, 8, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. Unless an intent to the contrary is clearly manifest by its terms, a statute providing generally f
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.