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
1899 Cases
187 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
Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co.
CHAPPELL CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY v. SULPHUR MINES COMPANY (No. 2). No. 92. ERROR TO THE COURT OF ARRBALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. Argued December 16, 1898. Decided January 9, 1899. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in dismissing th
Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co.
CHAPPELL CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY v. SULPHUR MINES COMPANY (No. 1). No. 91. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. Argued December 16, 1898. Decided January 9, 1899. The decision of the Mai'yland Court of Appeals in
Fitts v. McGhee
FITTS v. McGHEE. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. No. 130. Argued October 26, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. A suit brought by the receivers of a railroad against the Attorney General
Capital National Bank v. First National Bank
CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK OF LINCOLN v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CADIZ. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 72. Argued December 2, 5, 1898. Decided January 3,1899. A writ of error from this court to revise the judgment of a s
Utter v. Franklin
UTTER v. FRANKLIN. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 94. Argued and submitted December 12, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. It was within the power of Congress to validate the bonds in question in this proceeding,
Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co.
SONNENTHEIL v. CHRISTIAN MOERLEIN BREWING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 45. Argued October 18, 19,1898. Decided January 3, 1899. A suit against a marshal of the United States, for acts done in his
Home for Incurables v. Noble
HOME FOR INCURABLES v. NOBLE. COLVILLE v. AMERICAN SECURITY AND TRUST COMPANY. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 57, 61. Argued November 9, 10, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. Mrs. Kuth died on the 16th of J
Simpson v. United States
SIMPSON v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 51. Argued October 19, 20,1898. Decided January 3, 1899. The plaintiffs contracted with the United States to construct a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard according to plans an
Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia
WASHINGTON MARKET COMPANY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 83. Argued December 9, 12, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. In the provision in the 16th section of the act of May 20, 1870,
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. Krumseig
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS TRUST COMPANY v. KRUMSEIG. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 66. Argued December 2,1898. Decided January 3,1899. Usury is a statutory offence, and Federal courts, in dealing with
Scott v. United States
SCOTT v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 80. Submitted December 5,1898. Decided January 3, 1899. The plaintiff in error, defendant below, a letter carrier, npon his t
United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Co.
UNITED STATES v. BUFFALO NATURAL GAS FUEL COMPANY. CERTIORARI to.the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit. No. 64. Submitted December 2,1898. Decided January 3,1899. Under the tarift’ act of October 1, 1890, natural gas is entitl
Clark v. Kansas City
CLARK v. KANSAS CITY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 402. Argued December 13,1898. Decided January 3, 1899. As the laws of Kansas permit an amendment of the plaintiffs’ pleadings in the court below after the overruli
United States v. Ingram
UNITED STATES v. INGRAM. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 82. Argued December 9, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. In 1890, appellee, under the Desert Land act of 1877 applied to reclaim and enter a tract of land, which was part of an even
United States v. Bliss
UNITED STATES v. BLISS. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 394. Submitted December 12,1898. Decided January 3, 1899. The appellee’s testator contracted with the United States in 1863 to construct war vessels. Owing to changes in plan and
Bellingham Bay & British Columbia RailRoad v. New Whatcom
BELLINGHAM BAY & BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NEW WHATCOM. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 96. Argued December 16, 1898. Decided January 3, 1899. An answer by the defendant in an action in a state court br
Winston v. United States
WINSTON v. UNITED STATES. STRATHER v. UNITED STATES. SMITH v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 431, 432, 433. Argued November 28, 1898. Decided January 3,1899. Under the act of Congress of
Capital National Bank v. Coldwater National Bank
Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. Coldwater National Bank. Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. Coldwater National Bank. McDonald v. Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Company. McDonald v. Genesee Fruit Company. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76.
Bellingham Bay Improvement Co. v. New Whatcom
Bellingham Bay Improvement Company v. New Whatcom. Same v. Same. Nos. 97 and. 98. Argued with No. 96.
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.