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
Soper v. Lawrence Bros.
SOPER v. LAWRENCE BROTHERS COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MAINE. No. 206. Argued March 9, 12, 13, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. The distinction between trespass and disseisin may be modified by statute, as prope
United States v. Downing
UNITED STATES v. DOWNING. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 104. Argued March 2, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Carbon sticks from twelve to twenty inches in length and which require only a slight and inex
York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell
YORK MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. CASSELL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 208. Argued March 14, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. A mortgage containing no clause covering, after-acquired property is not a lien on
Joy v. City of St. Louis
JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 204. Argued March 9, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Where diversity of citizenship does not exist, plaintiff cannot make out a
Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Mayes
HOUSTON AND TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. MAYES. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE- THIRD DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF .TEXAS. No. 198. Argued March 8, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. An absolute requirement that a railroad engaged i
Keen v. Keen
KEEN v. KEEN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MISSOURI. No. 188. Argued March 7, 8, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Where the only assignment of error does not involve any Federal question the'mere statement in- the motion for new t
De la Rama v. De la Rama
De la RAMA v. De la RAMA. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 102. Argued December 5, 6, 1905. Decided April 2, 1906. The general rule that courts of the United States have no jurisdiction upon the subject of divorc
Poppleton v. Wallace
POPPLETON v. WALLACE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH • 'CIRCUIT, No. 194. Argued March 6, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Decided on authority of Wyman v. Wallace, ante, p. 230. Mr. Richard 8. Horton for appellant. Mr.
Frenzer v. Wallace
FRENZER v. WALLACE. MORSMAN v. SAME. McCLELLAN v. SAME. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 192, 193, 195. Submitted March 6, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Decided on authority of Wyman v. Wallace, ante, p.
Wyman v. Wallace
WYMAN v. WALLACE. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 191. Submitted March 6, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Where a national bank has gone into liquidation under § 5220, Rev. Stat., and one hold
Christopher v. Norvell
CHRISTOPHER v. NORVELL. ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 211. Submitted March 9, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Although in a limited sense there is an element of contract in becoming a shareholde
Wisconsin v. Hitchcock
WISCONSIN v. HITCHCOCK. IN EQUITY. No. 12, Original. Argued February 21, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. The provisions in the enabling act of August 6, 1846, authorizing the people of the then Territory of Wisconsin to form a state government
Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Co.
AMADEO v. NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY. AMADEO v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY. SAME v. SAME. ERROR'TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO. Nos. 199, 200 and 201. Argued March 8, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Roy
Brown v. Gurney
BROWN v. GURNEY. SMALL v. BROWN. BROWN v. SMALL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP COLORADO. Nos. 97, 98 and 99. Argued December 5, 1905. Decided April 2, 1906. The Land Department refused to issue a patent on a mining lode locatio
St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
ST. LOUIS DRESSED BEEF AND PROVISION COMPANY v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT' COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 197. Argued March 7, 1906. Decided March 19, 1906. An insurance company issued its policy
Ex parte Automatic Switch Co.
Ex parte AUTOMATIC SWITCH COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, PETITIONER. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 18, Original. Argued February 19, 1906. Decided March 19, 1906. Decided on authority of Ex parle National'Enameling and Stamping Co,, ante,
Ex parte National Enameling & Stamping Co.
Ex parte NATIONAL ENAMELING AND STAMPING COMPANY, PETITIONER. PETITION FOR WRIT Oí' MANDAMUS. No. 17, Original. Argued February 19, 1906. Decided March 19, 1906. Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve claim
United States v. Stinson
UNITED STATES v. STINSON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 153. Argued January 25, 26, 1905. Decided March 13, 1906. The Government, like an individual, may maintain any appropriate action to set aside i
Blair v. City of Chicago
BLAIR v. CITY OF CHICAGO. NORTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY v. BLAIR. CITY OF CHICAGO v. FETZER. BLAIR v. CITY OF CHICAGO. CHICAGO WEST DIVISION RAILWAY COMPANY v. BLAIR. CITY OF CHICAGO v. FETZER. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE VÜN
Otis Co. v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.
OTIS COMPANY v. LUDLOW MANUFACTURING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS. No. 73. Argued March 1, 2, 1906. Decided March 12, 1906. Where the Federal question is distinctly set up in the bill, and insisted on a
Valentina v. Mercer
VALENTINA v. MERCER, SHERIFF. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 404. Argued February 27, 1906. Decided March 12, 1906. Felts v. Murphy, ante,- p. 123, followed, to effect that the writ of
Felts v. Murphy
FELTS v. MURPHY, WARDEN. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 533. Argued February 26, 27, 1906. Decided March 12, 1906. Where in the criminal trial of a person compos mentis, but alm
Alexander v. United States
ALEXANDER v. UNITED STATES. WHITING v. SAME. STUART v. SAME. GENERAL PAPER COMPANY v. SAME. HARMON AND GENERAL PAPER COMPANY v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Nos. 381, 382,
Nelson v. United States
NELSON v. UNITED STATES. BOSSARD v. SAME. McNAIR v. SAME. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Nos. 490, 491, 492. Argued January 5, 8, 1906. Decided March 12, 1906. In a suit in the Circuit Court o
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.