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
Wilson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
No. 625. Charles C. Wilson, Petitioner, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company et al. May 1, 1905. Mr. Burton Smith for petitioner. Mr. F. G..du Bignon for respondent.
Leather Manufacturers' National Bank v. Treat
No. 561. The Leather Manufacturers’ National Bank of New York City, Petitioner, v. Charles H. Treat, Collector, etc. May 1, 1905. Mr. Frank W. Hackett for petitioner. The Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt for respondent.
In re Nifou
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Oli Nifou, Petitioner. Submitted April 10, 1905. Decided May 1, 1905. Mr. Gilbert F. Little for petitioner. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General opposing.
Dunbar v. Green
DUNBAR v. GREEN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 200. Submitted April 6, 1905. Decided May 1, 1905. The guardian of an Indian minor appointed in a county of Kansas, other than that in which the land was situated, gave
Rodriguez v. United States
RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO. No. 183. Submitted March 15, 1905. Decided May 1, 1905. Under §§ 34, 35 of the Foraker act of 1900, 31 Stat. 85, this court can rev
Allen v. Arguimbau
ALLEN v. ARGUIMBAU. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 523. Submitted April 3, 1905. Decided May 1, 1905. Where the judgment of the- state court rests on two grounds, one involving a Federal question and the other not,
Jaster v. Currie
JASTER v. CURRIE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 205. Argued April 7 and 10, 1905. Decided April 24, 1905. Service of ¿ writ, in Ohio, upon a party who came into the State' for the purpose of being present at the t
Steigleder v. McQuesten
STEIGLEDER v. McQUESTEN. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 227. Submitted April 14, 1905 Decided April 24, 1905. An-averment in the bill of the diverse citizenship of the parties is suffi
Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict
HOWE SCALE COMPANY v. WYCKOFF, SEAMANS & BENEDICT. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 130. Argued January 16, 17, 1905. Decided April 24, 1905. In an action to restrain the use of a personal name in trade
Bonin v. Gulf Co.
BONIN v. GULF COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 50. Argued March 16, 1905. Decided April 24, 1905. In an action of ejectment plaintiff pitched his claim solely on a patent from the United States; defe
Jewell v. City of Superior
No. 605. Harry L. Jewell, Petitioner, v. City of Superior. April 17, 1905. Mr. Ghester B. Masslich for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Lee Look v. Ross
No. 544. Lee Look, Appellant, v. Frank H. Ross, Jr., Sheriff of Santa Clara County, Cal. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 10, 1905. Dec
Hernan v. Texas
No. 204. Mike Hernan, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Texas. In error to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas. Submitted April 7, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. Mr. Cecil H. Smith, Mr. Amos L. Beaty and Mr. Wm. P. Ellison
Covington v. First National Bank
COVINGTON v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COVINGTON. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COVINGTON v. COVINGTON. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. Nos. 113, 114. Argued January 5, 1905. Decided April 17,
Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad
REMINGTON v. CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. No. 460. Submitted March 6, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. This court has jurisdiction of a writ of error,
Humphrey v. Tatman
HUMPHREY v. TATMAN. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS. No. 169. Argued March 7, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. Whether the taking possession of after-acquired property within four months of the filing of the petition
Beavers v. Haubert
BEAVERS v. HAUBERT. SAME v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. ' No. 354. Argued February 23, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED ST
Lochner v. New York
LOCHNER v. NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF ONEIDA COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 292. Argued February 23, 24, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part, of the liberty prot
Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw
PABST BREWING COMPANY v. CRENSHAW. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 85. Argued December 8, 1904. Decided April 17, 1905. The malt liquor inspection law of Missouri provides for the
Benson v. Henkel
BENSON v. HENKEL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 308. Argued February 20, 21, 1905. Decided April 17, 1905. In proceedings before an extradition Commissioner, if the indictment
Muhlker v. New York & Harlem Railroad
MUHLKER v. NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR, TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 99. Argued December 12, 13, 1905, Reargued February24, 27, 1905. Decided April 10, 1905. The permission or command of the State can g
Knapp v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
KNAPP v. LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP OHIO. No. 251. Argued February 28, 1905. Decided April 10, 1905. The Circuit Court of the United States'
Rassmussen v. United States
RASSMUSSEN v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA. No. 51. Argued November 4, 1904. Decided April 10, 1905. The treaty with Russia concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the t
Whitaker v. McBride
WHITAKER v. McBRIDE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 135. Submitted January 18, 1905. Decided April 10, 1905. The question of the title of a riparian owner is one of local law, and un~. restricted grants of the Gove
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.