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
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
Wheeler v. Plumas County
WHEELER v. PLUMAS COUNTY. CERTIORARI,TO THE- CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 122. Submitted January 12, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. Decided on authority of Flanigan v. Sierra County, ante, p. 553. The facts are sta
Flanigan v. Sierra County
FLANIGAN v. SIERRA COUNTY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS .FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 121. Argued January 12, 1905. — Decided February 20, 1905. Whether a statute of a State is or is not a revenue measure and how rights thereund
City of Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.
CITY OF WORCESTER v. WORCESTER CONSOLIDATED STREET RAILWAY COMPANY. SAME v. SAME. SAME ET AL. v. SAME. SAME ET AL. SAME. SAME v. SAME. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL AND THE SUPERIOR COURTS OP THE COMMONWEALTH OP MASSACHUSETTS. Nos. 144, 145
Oklahoma City v. McMaster
OKLAHOMA CITY v. McMASTER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 137. Argued January 18, 19, 1905. — Decided February 20, 1905. The review by this court of final judgments in civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Te
Thompson v. Fairbanks
THOMPSON v. FAIRBANKS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE' STATE' OF VERMONT. No. 114. Submitted January 6, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. Whether, and to wjhat extent, a chattel • mortgage, which includes after • acquired property, is va
United States v. Engard
UNITED STATES v. ENGARD. APPEAL FROM .THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 136. Argued January 18, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. The Navy Department has no power to disregard the provisions of Rev. Stat. §§ 1556, 1571, and Pars. 1154, 1168, naval r
Western Tie & Timber Co. v. Brown
WESTERN TIE AND TIMBER COMPANY v. BROWN. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 232. Argued January 5, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. The bankrupt was largely indebted to a corporation whose laborers purchas
Vanderbilt v. Eidman
VANDERBILT v. EIDMAN. CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 206. Argued October 13, 14, 1904.— Decided February 20, 1905. Where a legacy under the will of one dying in September, 1899, was t
Corry v. Mayor of Baltimore
CORRY v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OP THE STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 86. Argued December 8, 1904.— Decided February 20, 1905. The sovereign that creates a corporation has the incidental right to impose re
Allen v. Alleghany Co.
ALLEN v. ALLEGHANY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. No. 119. Argued January 11, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. The mere construction by a state court of a statute of another State and its operation elsewher
Smiley v. Kansas
SMILEY v. KANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 13. Argued October 20, 21, 1904.— Decided February 20, 1905. This court will not inquire whether the finding of the jury in the state court is against the evidence; it
Caledonian Coal Co. v. Baker
CALEDONIAN COAL COMPANY v. BAKER. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY. OF-NEW MEXICO. No. 419. Argued January 27, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. In an action for mandamus against a judge of a territorial court in New Mexico, w
McDaniel v. Traylor
McDANIEL v. TRAYLOR. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 129. Submitted January 16, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. Complainants, who were heirs at law of an intestate leaving real
Hamburg American Steamship Co. v. Grube
HAMBURG AMERICAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. GRUBE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 411. Submitted January 16, 1905.— Decided February 20, 1905. The agreement of September 16, 1833, between New York and New Jersey, confirm
Sanders v. Kentucky
No. 181. Fred Sanders, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky. January 30, 1905. Mr. Charles H. Gibson for plaintiff in error. Mr. Napoleon B. Hays for defendant in error.
Harriman v. Northern Securities Co.
No. 512. Edward H. Harriman et al., Petitioners, v. Northern Securities Company. January 30, 1905. Mr. William D. Guthrie, Mr. R. S. Lovett; Mr. D. T. Watson, Mr. John F. Dillon and Mr. Maxwell Evarts for petitioners. Mr. John G. Johnson, M
Lorenz v. United States
No. 490. George E. Lorenz et al., Petitioners, v. The United States. January 30, 1905. Mr.'Conrad H. Syme, Mr. Samuel- Maddóx and Mr. Charles .A. Douglass for petitioners.. The Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt and Mr. Assistant
Board of Supervisors v. Thompson
No. 156. The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County Cal. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert H. Thompson. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Submitted January 24, 1905. Decided January 30, 190
Small v. Rakestraw
SMALL v. RAKESTRAW. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OF MONTANA. No. 133. Argued January 18, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. A homestead claimant in a contest in the Land Department admitted he voted in a precinct in Montana other t
Swift & Co. v. United States
SWIFT AND COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 103. Argued January 6, 7, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. A combination of a dominant proportion of the deale
Munsey v. Clough
MUNSEY v. CLOUGH. ERROR' TO THÉ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW ' HAMPSHIRE. No. 126. Argued January 13, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. Proceedings in interstate rendition are summary; strict common law evidence is not necessary, and th
Ramsey v. Tacoma Land Co.
RAMSEY v. TACOMA LAND COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT-OP THE,STATE OF4 WASHINGTON. No. 138. Submitted January 17, 1905.— Decided January 30, 1905. In a remedial statute such as § 5, act'of March 3,1887, 24 Stat. 557,.enabling bona fide
Creede & Cripple Creek Mining & Milling Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Co.
CREEDE AND CRIPPLE CREEK MINING AND MILLING COMPANY v. UINTA TUNNEL MINING AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 18. Argued April 15, 18, 1904.—Reargued January 10,
United States v. Crosley
UNITED STATES v. CROSLEY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 96. Submitted December 9, 1904.— Decided January 23, 1905. •While the court may not add to or take from the terms of a statute, the main purpose of construction is to give effec
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.