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
1902 Cases
226 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
London, Paris & American Bank, Ltd. v. Aaronstein
No. 455. London, Paris and American Bank, Limited, Petitioner, v. Rosalie Aaronstein, Executrix, etc. October 20, 1902. Mr. Louis Marshall and Mr. Henry Ach for the petitioner. Mr '. Simon G. Soheeline for the respondent.
Boston Fruit Co. v. Hall
No. 399. Boston Fruit Company, Petitioner, v. A. G. Hall et al. October 20, 1902. Mr. J. L. Thorndike and Mr. Charles Theodore Russell for the petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlim, for the respondents.
Indiana Power Co. v. St. Joseph & Elkhart Power Co.
No. 394. Indiana Power Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. St. Joseph and Elkhart Power Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 14, 1902. Decided October 20, 1902. Mr. Frank
Tsukamoto v. Lackmann
No. 55. George Tsukamoto, Appellant, v. John Lackmann et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California: Submitted October 16, 1902. Decided October 20, 1902. Mr. James G. Maguire for the appe
Ambrosini v. United States
AMBROSINI v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS. No. 14. Argued December 4, 1901. Decided October 20, 1902. Sections 6 and 7 of the War Revenue Act of 1898', 30 Stat. 448, c
Cope v. Braden
No. 245. O. E. Cope, Appellant, v. Landa H. Braden. October 14, 1902. Mr. Horace Speed for the appellant. No appearance for the appellee.
Lee Ling v. United States
No. 365. No. 366. No. 367. No. 368. Lee Ling et al., Appellants, v. The United States; Say On et al., Appellants, v. The United States; King Dung, Appellant, v. The United States; and Yee Toy et al., Appellants, v. The United States. June 2
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Furry
No. 678. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Furry. Eighth Circuit. Denied June 2, 1902. Mr. L. F. Parker for the petitioner. Mr. Joseph M. Sill and Mr. James Brizzolara opposing.
Hanifen v. Price
No. 243. Hanifen v. Price. On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Odurt of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued April 29, 1902. Decided June 2, 1902. Mr. W. P. Preble, Jr., for the petitioner. Mr. Edmund Wetmore, for the respo
Lander v. Mercantile Bank
LANDER v. MERCANTILE BANK. APPEAL FEOM THE CIECUIT COUBT OF APPEALS FOE THE SIXTH CIECUIT. No. 227. Argued April 18, 1902. Decided June 2, 1902. This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of Oh
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Penn Plate Glass Co.
FARMERS’ LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY v. PENN PLATE GLASS COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE THIRD x CIRCUIT. No. 180. Argued April 24, 25, 1902. Decided June 2, 1902. This was a suit in equity, brought by the petitioner,
Hagan v. Scottish Insurance
HAGAN v. SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 206. Argued April 8, 1902. Decided June 2, 1902. Where a marine policy is taken out upon a blank policy providing by many' of its ter
Hotema v. United States
HOTEMA v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No. 672. Submitted April 28, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. In relation' to tlie part of this charge, in which the, court speaks of an irresistible impul
Capital City Light & Fuel Co. v. Tallahassee
CAPITAL CITY LIGHT AND FUEL COMPANY v. TALLAHASSEE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 209. Submitted April 7, 1902 — Decided June 2,1902. The city of Tallahassee has never been under obligation to take electric lightin
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health
COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE DE NAVIGATION A VA-PEUR v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH. EEEOE TO THE SUPEEME COUET OE THE STATE OE LOUISIANA. No. 4. Argued October 29, 30, 1900. — Affirmed June 2, 1902. The law of Louisiana under which the Board of
Warner v. Godfrey
WARNER v. GODFREY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OE APPEALS OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 191. Argued April 25, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. This was a bill, filed by the appellee to establish her title to land in the city of Washington, of whi
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Courtney
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY v. COURTNEY. ' CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 178. Argued March 3, 4, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. In an action brought by the receiver of a national bank appointed by the
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 164. Argued November 7, 8, 1901. — Decided June 2, 1902. This record requires the court to dete
United States v. Freel
UNITED STATES v. FREEL. ERROR TO THE OIECUIT COUKT OF APPEALS FOE THE SECOND OIRCUIT. No. 224. Argued April 17, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. A surety on a contractor’s bond, conditioned for the performance of a contract to construct a dry
Kennard v. Nebraska
KENNARD v. NEBRASKA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 261. Submitted May 2, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. There was no dispute as to the facts out of which this controversy arose. The right of the plaintiff to recove
United States v. Nichols
UNITED STATES v. NICHOLS. CERTIFICATE FROM THE OIROUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND • CIROÜIT. No. 249. Submitted May 2, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. Section 19 of the customs administrative act of 1890, requiring that whenever imported
Pine River Logging Co. v. United States
PINE RIVER LOGGING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR JO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 250. Argued May 1, 2, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. By an act of Congress of February 16, 1889, the President was authorized to a
Hoffeld v. United States
HOFFELD v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 318. Argued.April 16, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. The statute of June 16, 1880, providing that where entries of public lands have been canceled, the Secretary of the Interior
New York Central Railroad v. New York
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. No. 234. Argued April 23, 24, 1902. — Decided June 2, 1902. Without deciding that the briefs of counsel may be resorted to for the purpose of determining
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.