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
1906 Cases
239 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
Guy v. Donald
GUY v. DONALD. certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 90. Argued November 8, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. While one carrying on private business may be answprable for the- torts of another to whom he en
Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta
CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY AND PIPE WORKS v. CITY OF ATLANTA. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 94. Argued November 9, 12, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. By express provision of the act of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209
Fair Haven & Westville Railroad v. New Haven
FAIR HAVEN AND WESTVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. NEW HAVEN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. No. 84. Argued November 5, 6, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A general law requiring street railways to keep a certai
Offield v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
OFFIELD v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. No. 59. Argued October 25, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Where plaintiff in error contends that the. purpose f
Cruit v. Owen
CRUIT v. OWEN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 51. Argued October 19, 22, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A trust in a will in favor of testator’s four daughters and “ from and after their death" for the '.
International Trust Co. v. Weeks
INTERNATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. WEEKS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 31. Argued October 17, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. An action for rent of premises for unexpired term of a lease brought by the lessor
City of Monterey v. Jacks
CITY OF MONTEREY v. JACKS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 27. Argued October 16, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. In California, pueblo lands, which were simply ancillary to the execution of the public trust and i
John Woods & Sons v. Carl
JOHN WOODS & SONS v. CARL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 102. Submitted November 7, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Allen v. Riley, ante p. 347 followed as to power of a State to require one selling patent rights
Allen v. Riley
ALLEN v. RILEY. ERROR TO THE StTPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99. Submitted November 6, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. While a State may not pass any law prohibiting the sale of patents for inventions or nullifying the laws of Co
Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad
MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMMISSION v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE PIPTH CIRCUIT. No. 64. Argued October 26, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Where complainant not only sets up diverse citi
Security Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. City of Lexington
SECURITY TRUST AND SAFETY VAULT COMPANY v. CITY OF LEXINGTON. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 55. Argued October 23, 24, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Before a special assessment, levied by legislative authorit
Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. City of Columbus
MERCANTILE TRUST & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF BALTIMORE v. CITY OF COLUMBUS. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. No. 50. Argued October 22, 23, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Where the bill of t
National Live Stock Bank v. First National Bank
NATIONAL LIVE STOCK BANK OF CHICAGO v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GENESEO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. No. 33. Argued October 17, 18, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. The proper .way to review judgments in actions at
Martin v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railroad
MARTIN v. PITTSBURG AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. No. 66. Argued October 26, 29, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. In the absence of action by Congress a State may by statute determine, and e
C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson
C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER COMPANY v. FRANSON. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 30. Argued October 17, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A declaration that plaintilf is a resident of a Stat
Heyman v. Southern Railway Co.
HEYMAN v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 32. Submitted October 17, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. In the absence of Congressional legislation goods moving in interstate commerce cease to b
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Florida ex rel. Ellis
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY v. FLORIDA ex rel ELLIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TH.E STATE OF FLORIDA. Nos. 10, 11. Argued March 2, 5, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Atlantic Coast Line v. Florida ex rel. Ellis, ante, p.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Florida ex rel. Ellis
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. FLORIDA EX REL. ELLIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 9. Argued March 2, 5, 1900. Decided December 3, 1906. Where the state law provides that rates establish
Northwestern National Life Insurance v. Riggs
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. RIGGS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ' MISSOURI. No. 34. Argued October 18, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. The provisions of §§ 7890, 7891, Revis
Francis v. Francis
FRANCIS v. FRANCIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MICHIGAN. No. 8. Submitted October 10, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A title in fee may pass to an. individual by a- treaty without the aid of an act of Congress; and this rul
Appleyard v. Massachusetts
APPLEYARD v. MASSACHUSETTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 115. Submitted November 16, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. The constitutional provision relating to fugitives from justic
Moyer v. Nichols
MOYER v. NICHOLS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO. No. 250. Argued October 10, 11, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Pettibone v. Nichols, ante p. 192 followed; 85 Pac. Rep. 897, 902, affirmed. The
Pettibone v. Nichols
PETTIBONE v. NICHOLS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO. No. 249. Argued October 10, 11, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. The duty of a Federal court, to interfere, on habeas corpus, for the protect
St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia
ST. MARY’S FRANCO-AMERICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY v. WEST VIRGINIA. ERROR TO THE SUPÉEME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA. No. 98. Submitted November 5, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A State has power to regulate its own creation
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.