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
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
Rose v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman
No. 360. W. W. Rose, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Kansas on the Relation of C. C. Coleman, Attorney General. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 15, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for plaintiff in
North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. Gill
No. 35. North American Transportation and Trading Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. B. Gill. Submitted for plaintiff in error October 18, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Mr. Frederick Bausman for plaintiff, in error. No appearance for defe
Waters v. Emmons
No. 19. Joseph J. Waters, Administrator of Robert Jackson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. George E. Emmons and J. Paul Smith. Submitted October 11, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Mr. Joseph J. Waters for-plaintiff in error. Mr. William F
Landram v. Jordan
LANDRAM v. JORDAN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT. OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 479. Argued October 9, 1906. Decided October 22, 1906. Testator created a trust''for his children including therein all of his property except one parcel,
Stewart v. Wright
No. 443. James P. Stewart et al., Petitioners, v. H. S. Wright. October 15, 1906. Mr. John M. Thurston and Mr. W. R. Robertson for petitioners. Mr. John W. Halliburton for respondent.
Saginaw Match Co. v. Diamond Match Co.
No. 397. The Saginaw Match Company, Petitioner, v. The Diamond Match Company. October 15, 1906. Mr. Ralzemond A. Parker and Mr. Charles F. Burton for petitioner. Mr.. John R. Nolan for respondent.
Reeve v. North Carolina Land & Timber Co.
No. 298. M. P. Reeve, Petitioner, v. North Carolina Land and Timber Company et al. October 15, 1906. Mr. H. H. Ingersoll for petitioner. . Mr. R. E. L. Mountcastle for respondents.
Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chapman
No. 413. The Atlantic Trust Company, Petitioner, v. Edgar C. Chapman, Receiver, etc., et al. October 15, 1906. Mr. Edward B. Whitney and Mr. Stanley W. Dexter for petitioner. Mr. Edgar C. Chapman for respondents.
In re the Seneca Nation
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of The Seneca Nation et al., Petitioners. Submitted October 9, 1906. Decided October 15, 1906. Mr. Chester Howe for petitioners. Mr. W. H. Robeson, Mr. J. J. Hemp-hill, Mr. A. B. Browne and Mr. Alexa
New Mexico ex rel. E. J. McLean & Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad
NEW MEXICO ex rel. E. J. McLEAN & COMPANY v. DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM- THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. No. 18. Argued March 14, 15, 1906. Decided October 15, 1906. The right to legislate in the Ter
Union Pacific Railroad v. Fink
No. 22. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Robert O. Fink, Treasurer, etc., et al. October 9, 1906. Mr. Maxwell Evarts and Mr. John N. Baldwin for appellant. Mr. Norris Brown for appellees.
Newport News & Old Point Railway & Electric Co. v. Hampton Roads Railway & Electric Co.
No. 5. The Newport News and Old Point Railway and Electric Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hampton Roads Railway and Electric Company et al. October 9, 1906. Mr. S. Gordon Gumming and Mr. Fred Harper for plaintiff in error. Mr. R. G. Bickfo
Hodges v. United States
HODGES v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS. No. 14 of October Term, 1905. Submitted October 19, 1905. — Restored to the docket, for oral argument, November 6, 1905. — Argue
McDermott v. Severe
McDERMOTT v. SEVERE. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 244. Argued April 20, 23, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. The motorman of a trolley car, which was rapidly approaching a place where a small boy was trying to a
Missouri v. Illinois
MISSOURI v. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO. No. 4, Original. Submitted May 14, 1906. — Decided May 28, 1906. This court has power to allow costs in original actions and in any action between States, the successful State may a
New York ex rel. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Miller
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK UPON THE RELATION OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. MILLER. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. KELSEY. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. SAME. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. ERROR TO T
Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. United States
FRANKLIN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA. No. 652. Argued April 27, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. United States v. American Sugar Co., ante,
United States v. American Sugar Refining Co.
UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 269. Argued April 27, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. Under the treaty between the United States and
McNeill v. Southern Railway Co.
McNEILL v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, v. McNEILL. APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR .THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP NORTH CAROLINA. Nos. 370, 594. Argued April 2, 3, 1906.- — Decided M
McDonald v. Dewey
McDONALD, RECEIVER, v. DEWEY. DEWEY v. McDONALD, RECEIVER. APPEAL AND CROSS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 220, 530. Argued April 11, 12, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. An officer of 'a national bank ow
O'Conor v. Texas
O’CONOR v. TEXAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP TEXAS. No. 236. Argued April 19, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. As subsection 1 of section 639, Rev. Stat., wa,s repealed by the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, and, as the purpo
Lincoln v. United States
LINCOLN v. UNITED STATES. WARNER, BARNES AND COMPANY, LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. APPEAL FROM THE. COURT OF CLAIMS. Nos. 149, 466. Argued March 3, 1905;
Gutierrez v. Territory of New Mexico ex rel. Curran
No. 249. Thomas C. Gutierrez et al., Appellants, v. The Territory of New Mexico ex rel. Thomas J. Curran et al. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Submitted April 25, 1906. Decided May 21, 1906. Mr. W. B. Childers
Bush v. Elliott
BUSH v. ELLIOTT. BUSH v. ELLIOTT CAR COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. Nos. 245, 246. Argued April 24, 25, 1906. Decided May 21, 1906. Where by reason of the amount involved and t
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.