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
1896 Cases
250 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
Wong Wing v. United States
WONG WING v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 204. Argued April 1, 2, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. Detention or temporary confinement, as part of tbe means necessary
Bacon v. Texas
BACON v. TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE SECOND SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 296. Argued May 6, 7, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. In this case application was made by the defendants below, after judgm
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Bent
SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BENT. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 7. Argued October 16, 17, 1894. Decided May 18, 1896. Singer Manufacturing Company v. June Manufacturing Com
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.
SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. JUNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS. No. 6. Argued October 16, 17, 1894. Decided May 18, 1896. The Singer machines were covered
Perego v. Dodge
PEREGO v. DODGE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH. No. 273. Argued May 1, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. This complaint being, in effect, a bill to quiet title as against an adverse claim, and the plaintiff having thus vo
Webster v. Daly
WEBSTER v. DALY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 265. Argued April 30, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. No appeal lies to this court from a decree of a Circuit Court of the United Sta
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. ILLINOIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ILLINOIS. No. 217. Argued April 14, 15, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. The act of Congress of September 20, 1850, c. 61, granted a right of way, and sect
Harrison v. United States
HARRISON v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ALABAMA. No. 294. Argued and submitted May 6, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. A person indicted for robbing a mail-carrier of a registered
United States v. Rider
UNITED STATES v. RIDER. OERTIBIOATB OB DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT' OB THE UNITED STATES BOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OB OHIO. No. 197. Argued April 1, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. The scheme of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891
Barnitz v. Beverly
BARNITZ v. BEVERLY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 863. Submitted April 18, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. A state statute -which authorizes the redemption of property sold upon-foreclosure of a mortgage, where no right
Salina Stock Co. v. Salina Creek Irrigation Co.
SALINA STOCK COMPANY v. SALINA CREEK IRRIGATION COMPANY. APPEAL from the supreme court oe THE TERRITORY OF UTAH. No. 191. Submitted March 31, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. Without denying its power to pass upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
Murray v. Louisiana
MURRAY v. LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 718. Argued and submitted April 16, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. Congress has not, by Rev. Stat. § 641, authorized a removal of a prosecution from a state court u
Telfener v. Russ
TELFENER v. RUSS. PETITION EOB REHEARING. No. 462. Presented May 7, 1896. Denied May 18, 1896. Petitions for rehearing of a case decided March 30, 1896, 162 U. S. 170, are denied. Two petitions for rehearing were received. Mr. Clarence H. M
Northern Pacific Railroad v. Egeland
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. EGELAND. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 288. Argued and submitted April 20, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. "When, in an action by a railroad employé against the company to
Lowe v. Kansas
LOWE v. KANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 174. Submitted March 24, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. A person upon whose oath a criminal information for a libel is filed, and who is found by the jury, as part of their
Cornell v. Green
CORNELL v. GREEN. APPEAL EROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS. No. 160. Argued March 18, 19, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. In order to give this court appellate jurisdiction under the act of March
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taggart
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. TAGGART. -ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP TNUTANA. No. 662. Argued January 16, 17, 1896. Decided May 18, 1896. A statute of a State, requiring a telegraph company to pay a tax upon its property
Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co.
DIBBLE v. BELLINGHAM BAY LAND COMPANY. EBBOR TO THE SUFREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 230. Argued April 17, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. In a suit in a state court to quiet title, two claims to title were set up by tbe plaintiff.
Wiggan v. Conolly
WIGGAN v. CONOLLY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 225. Submitted April 16, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. The treaty of February 23, 1867,15 Stat. 513, with the Ottawas and other Indians, introduced the limit of minority
Kirk v. United States
KIRK v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 214. Argued April 14, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. If, under any circumstances, a patentee can sue to recover for the use of a patented article, made before the letters-patent were g
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chicago, Portage & Superior Railway Co.
FARMERS’ LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY v. CHICAGO, PORTAGE AND SUPERIOR RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. No. 60.
Putnam v. United States
PUTNAM v. UNITED STATES. SAME v. SAME. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Nos. 573, 574. Submitted January 23, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. An indictment agaiust its president for defrauding a n
Coffin v. United States
COFFIN v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE UNITED STATES FOR THB DISTRICT OF INDIANA. No. 801. Argued March 5, 6, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. Goffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, affirmed on the following points: (1) That
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. JAMES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 206. Argued and submitted April 2, 1896. Decided May 4, 1896. The statute of the State of Georgia of October 22, 1887, requiring every telegra
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.