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
1905 Cases
220 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
McGuire v. Blount
McGUIRE v. BLOUNT. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 6. Submitted January 18,1905, restored to docket January 30,1905, orally argued October 12 and 13,1905. Decided October 30, 1905. While c
Green v. MacDougall
Nos. 250, 251 and 252. George E. Green, Appellant, v. Clinton D. MacDougall, United States Marshal, etc. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Argued October 16, 1905. Decided October 23
Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids
No. 3. The Cedar Rapids Water Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of Cedar Rapids et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Argued October 17, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. • Mr. Charles A. Clark for plaintiff in err
In re Lawson
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Leonidas M. Lawson et al. Submitted October 10, 1905. Decided October 16, 1905. Mr. Charles C. Dey, Mr. Ogden ■Hiles and Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for the petitioners.
Farrell v. O'Brien
FARRELL v. O’BRIEN. APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 193. Argued April 4, 5,1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is invoked not only on the ground of di
Dimond v. Shine
DIMOND v. SHINE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 410. Argued February 21, 23, 1905. — Decided May 29, 1905. Hyde v. Shine, ante, p. 62, followed. Mr. Frank H. Platt and Mr. J.
Hyde v. Shine
HYDE v. SHINE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, No. 406. Argued February 21, 23, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Section 1014, Rev. Stat., authorizes a removal from a judicial .district
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
New York ex rel. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co. v. New York State Board of Tax Commissioners
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ex rel. TWENTY-THIRD STREET RAILWAY COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CENTRAL CROSSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SAME. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE O
New York ex rel. Brooklyn City Railroad v. New York State Board of Tax Commissioners
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. BROOKLYN CITY RAILROAD COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 79. Argued April 17, 18, 19, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. A lic
New York ex rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. New York State Board of Tax Commissioners
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 74. Argued April 17, 18, 19, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905.
Pitch Pine Lumber Co. v. Rosasco
No. 653. The Pitch Pine Lumber Company, Petitioner, v. William S. Rosasco et al. May 29, 1905. Mr. Harrington Putnam and Mr. Charles C. Burlingham for petitioner; Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. Charles R. Hickox iov respondents.
Shoesmith v. H. Meyer Boot & Shoe Manufacturing Co.
No. 588. Edward W. Shoesmith, Appellant, v. H. Meyer Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Company et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Motion to dismiss submitted May 15, 1905. Decided May
Great Western Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Harris
GREAT WESTERN MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. HARRIS. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 217. Argued April 14, 17, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. A receiver is an officer of the court which appoints him,
Van Reed v. People's National Bank of Lebanon
VAN REED v. PEOPLE’S NATIONAL BANK OF LEBANON. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 229. Submitted April 25, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. National, banks are gwasi-public institutions, and for the purpose for which the
Whitney v. Wenman
WHITNEY v. WENMAN. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 576. Submitted April 24, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction of a proceeding in the nature of a
Union Trust Co. v. Wilson
UNION TRUST COMPANY, AND SECURITY WAREHOUSING COMPANY v. WILSON. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 424. Submitted January 6, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Prior to the petition the bankrupt, a wholesa
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Dashiell
TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. DASHIELL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 212. Argued April 11, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. An employé of a railroad company executed a release whicn, after reciting that
Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. Meyer
THE SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, v. MEYER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 234. Argued April 28, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. A certificate of insurance on the life of a member residing in New York in a mutual
Ah Sin v. Wittman
AH SIN v. WITTMAN. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 245. Submitted April 28, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Where the petitioner contends that a criminal law of. the State is
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. West Coast Naval Stores Co.
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. WEST COAST NAVAL STORES COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 225. Submitted April 23, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. A common carrier may agree with such ot
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
Cunnius v. Reading School District
CUNNIUS, NOW SMITH, v. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 165. Argued March 6, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. That the Fourteenth Amendment does not deprive the States of their police power ov
Lavagnino v. Uhlig
LAVAGNINO v. UHLIG. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH. No. 120. Argued January 12, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Where the necessary effect of the ruling .of the state court is to deny to a locator of a mineral claim the protect
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.