Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 312,996+ 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
1904 Cases
244 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
Commercial National Bank v. Weinhard
COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK v. WEINHARD. SAME v. WILLIAMS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OREGON. Nos. 109, 110. Argued December 17, 1903. Decided January 18, 1904. Section 5205, Rev. Stat., is intended to, and does, confer upon a
Shappirio v. Goldberg
SHAPPIRIO v. GOLDBERG. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 87. Argued December 9,1903. Decided January 18,1904. To ascertain its jurisdiction this court looks not to a single feature of the case but to the enti
Rogers v. Alabama
ROGERS v. ALABAMA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. No. 407. Submitted January 4, 1904. Decided January 18, 1904. A motion to quash an indictment for murder was made on the ground that all colored men' had been excluded f
Bedford v. United States
BEDFORD v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 23. Argued December 9, 1903. Decided January 18, 1904. Damages to land by flooding as the result of, revetments erected by the United States along the banks of the Mississippi R
Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin & King's River Canal & Irrigation Co.
STANISLAUS COUNTY v. SAN JOAQUIN AND KING’S RIVER CANAL AND IRRIGATION COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 80. Argued November 13, 30, December 1, 1903. Decided January 18
H. Hackfeld & Co. v. United States
No. 527. H. Hackfeld & Co. (Limited), Petitioner, v. United States. January 11, 1904. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’granted. Mr. Maxwell Evarts for petitioner. The Atto
Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict
No. 445. Howe Scale Company of 1886 et al. Petitioners, v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict. January 11, 1904. Petition for cross-writ of certiorari granted., Mr. Edmund Wetmore and Mr. Henry D. Donnelly for cross-petitioner. Mr. Austen G. Fox,
Crossman v. Lurman
CROSSMAN v. LURMAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE'STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 117. Argued December 18, 1903. Decided January 11, 1904. Chapter 661, § 41, 1893, of the Laws of New York, prohibiting the sale of adulterated, food and drugs is n
Wabash Railroad v. Pearce
WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY v. PEARCE. ERROR TO THE ST. LOUIS COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP MISSOURI. No. 112. Submitted December 18, 1903. Decided January 11, 1904. Where not only the scope and applicability of the doctrine of subrogation i
Ward v. Sherman
WARD v. SHERMAN. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 25. Argued October 15, 16, 1903. Decided January 11, 1904. Where the holder of a defaulted mortgage on a cattle range and cattle accepts the property in payment
Royal Insurance v. Martin
ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARTIN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED "STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO. No. 86. Argued December 8, 9, 1903. Decided January 11, 1904. This court has jurisdiction to review, on writ of 'error, a f
Boston Dry Goods Co. v. Smith
No. 511. Boston Dry Goods Company, Petitioner, v. Jeremiah Smith, Jr., et al. January 4, 1904. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Mr.. Frank II. Stewart for petition
Lufkin v. Lufkin
No. 268. Richard H. Lufkin et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Mary A. Lufkin. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted December 21, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904.
New York County National Bank v. Massey
NEW YORK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK v. MASSEY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT-COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 90. Argued December 11, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. . The balance of a regular bank account at the time of filing the petition
James v. Appel
JAMES v. APPEL. APPEAL PROM THE'. SUPREME .COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP ARIZONA., No. 108. Argued December 17, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. A statute copied from a Similar statute of another State is generally pre-' sumed 'to be adopted with
German Savings & Loan Society v. Dormitzer
GERMAN SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY v. DORMITZER. ERROR TO TflE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP WASHINGTON. No. 104. Argued December 16, 17, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. . A writ of error will not be dismissed on the ground that the Federal que
McIntire v. McIntire
CHARLES McINTIRE v. EDWIN A. McINTIRE. EDWIN A. McINTIRE v. CHARLES McINTIRE. APPEALS PROM, AND IN ERROR TO,' THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ‘ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 84, 85. Argued December 8, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904, A testator left
Cronin v. City of Denver
CRONIN v. CITY OF DENVER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. No. 101. Argued December 16, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. Certain sections of an ordinance of the city of Denver, Colorado, as to the sale of liquor held not t
Cronin v. Adams
CRONIN v. ADAMS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. No. 100. Argued December 16, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. 'The right to sell liquor by retail depends upon the law of the State which ' may affix conditions in granting
Joplin v. Chachere
JOPLIN v. CHACHERE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 96. Argued December 16, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. An adjudication by commissioners under sec. 4 of the áct of March 3, 1807, amending the act of March 2, 180
Citizens' Bank v. Parker
CITIZENS’ BANK v. PARKER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 2. Argued October 28, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. When a contract is asserted and tbe Constitution of the United States invoked to protect it, all of the
Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Taylor
POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. v. TAYLOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 93. Argued December 11, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. Courts are not to be deceived by the mere phraseology in which an' ordinance may be co
Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Hope
POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO v. NEW HOPE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 92. Argued December 11, 1993. Decided January 4, 1904. In an action against a telegraph company doing an interstate business for license fee
Benziger v. United States
BENZIGER v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 54. Argued December 10, 11, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. Paragraph 649 of the Tariff Act of 1897, providing for the free entry
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.