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
Rooney v. North Dakota
ROONEY v. NORTH DAKOTA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. No. 123. Argued Jauuary 12, 1905.— Decided January 23, 1905. By chapter 99, March 9, 1903, Laws of North Dakota, the statutes in force when plaintiff in error
United States v. Harvey Steel Co.
UNITED STATES v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 275. Argued January 3, 4, 1905.— Decided January 16, 1905. The United States made a contract with the steel company, for the'use of a process described as patented.
Burton v. United States
BURTON v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR" THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MISSOURI. No. 343. Argued November 30, December 1, 1904.— Decided January 16, 1905. A Senator of the -United States was indicted and trie
Hodge v. Muscatine County
HODGE v. MUSCATINE COUNTY, IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 150. Argued December 9, 12, 1904.— Decided January 16, 1905. If the taxpayer be given an opportunity to test the validity of a tax at any time before it i
Cook v. Marshall County
COOK v. MARSHALL COUNTY, IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 98. Argued December 9, 12, 1904.— Decided Jauuary 16, 1905. The term original package is not defined by statute and while it may be impossible to judicially
Lytle v. Gerald
No. 124. William R. Lytle, Appellant, v. Adolphus Gerald, Chief of Police of the City of Montgomery, Ala. January 9, 1905. Mr. W. S. Reese,- Jr., for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
Shewan, Tomes & Co. v. Merchants' Banking Co.
No. 475. Shewan, Tomes & Co., Petitioner, v. Merchants’ Banking Company (Limited). January 9, 1905. Mr. Harrington Putnam and Mr. Appleton L. Clark for petitioner. Mr. Frederick M. Brown for respondent.
Ex parte Barrett
No. —, Original. No. —, Original. No. —, Original, Ex parte: In the Matter of Thomas E. Barrett, Petitioner; Ex parte: In the Matter of John P. Dolan, Petitioner; and Ex parte: In the Matter of Frank Garrett, Petitioner. Submitted January 3
Travis v. United States
TRAVIS v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 84. Argued December 7, 8, 1904.— Decided January 9, 1905. Slavens v. United States, p. 229, ante, followed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appe
Slavens v. United States
SLAVENS v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 228. Argued December 7, 8, 1904.— Decided January 9, 1905. Under the mail contract in this case, which was made in pursuance of the Postal Laws and Regulations, and after the se
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
UNION STOCK YARDS COMPANY OF OMAHA v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY. certificate from the united states circuit court of APPEALS FOR THU EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 100. Argued December 14, 15, 1904.- Decided Jauuary 9, 1905. A ra
United States v. United Verde Copper Co.
UNITED STATES v. UNITED VERDE COPPER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 68. Argued December 2, 1904.— Decided January 9, 1905. An apt and sensibl meaning must be given to words as they are used in a stat
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Murphey
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. MURPHEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 111. Argued December 16, 1904. Decided January 9, 1905. Where the highest court of the State holds that a statute fixing the liability of
Fullerton v. Texas
FULLERTON v. TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 112. Argued December 16, 1904.— Decided January 9, 1905. It is too late to raise a Federal question by petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of a St
Sixto v. Sarria
SIXTO v. SARRIA. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR-THE DISTRICT OP PORTO RICO. No. 40. Submitted November 3, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. Under the law of Porto Rico while an heir to an intestate may assert his rights
Hartigan v. United States
HARTIGAN v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 72. Submitted December 6, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. A cadet at the West Point Military Academy is not an officer of the United States Army within the meaning of §§ 1229,
Moore v. United States
MOORE v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 71. Argued December 6, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. Usage may be resorted to in order to make definite what is uncertain, clear up what is doubtful, or annex incidents, but not
Wolff v. District of Columbia
WOLFF v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 62. Argued November 11, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. An object which subserves the use of streets need not necessarily be considered an obstruc
Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co.
LUCIUS v. CAWTHON-COLEMAN COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. No. 110. Submitted December 13, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine
Adams Express Co. v. Iowa
ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 82. Argued December 2, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. American Express Co. v. Iowa, ante, p. 133, followed. The facts am stated in the opinion. Mr. Lawrenc
American Express Co. v. Iowa
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY v. IOWA. ERROR TO THE SITPREME COTJRT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 67. Argued December 2, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. The writ of error in O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 344, was dismissed because it did not appear t
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. McGuire
CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS AND LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY v. McGUIRE. ERROR TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OE INDIANA. No. 69. Argued December 2, 5, 1904.— Decided Janury 3, 1905. Where certain fatts from which a Federal question might aris
Butte City Water Co. v. Baker
BUTTE CITY WATER COMPANY v. BAKER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF MONTANA. No. 109. Argued December 16, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. While the disposal of the public lands is made through the exercise of legislative power ent
First National Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSBORO v. LASATER. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE SECOND SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. . No. 73. Submitted December 6, 1904.— Decided January 3, 1905. The payment referred to in § 519
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.