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
1907 Cases
247 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
Lee v. New Jersey
LEE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. No. 16. Argued October 16, 1907. Decided October 28, 1907. A State has power to regulate the oyster industry although .carried on under tidal w
First National Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
Ex parte THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO v. THE CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY. PETITION FOR MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AND THE HONORABLE S
Wineman v. Drake
No. 466. Henry Wineman, Jr., Petitioner, v. M. M. Drake et al. October 21, 1907. Mr. Charles E. Kremer for petitioner. Mr. Harvey D. Goulder and Mr. F. S. Masten for respondents.
Osborn v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
No. 456. Milo H. Osborn, Petitioner, v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company. October 21, 1907. Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, Mr. Robert Dunlap and Mr. A. B. Browne for respondent.
Munn v. Reed
No. 340. No. 341. No. 342. No. 343. N. A. Munn et al., Petitioners, v. Clinton Reed; N. A. Munn et al., Petitioners, v. The Ibex Mining Company; N. A. Munn et al., Petitioners, v. The Ibex Mining Company; and N. A. Munn et al., Petitioners,
Federal Contracting Co. v. Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co.
No. 331. The Federal Contracting Company, Petitioner, v. Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company. October 21, 1907. Mr. Rowland B. Mahany and Mr. Edward W. Norris for petitioner. Mr. Horace L. Cheyney for respondent.
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Bank of Timmonsville
No. 327. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Petitioner, v. Bank of Timmonsville. October 21, 1907. Mr. J. P. Kennedy Bryan for petitioner. Mr. Henry A. M, Smith and Mr. P. A. Willcox for respondent.
Vogel v. Burson
No. 310. Paul F. Vogel, Petitioner, v. William Worth Burson. October 21, 1907. Mr.' E. T. Fenwick and Mr. E. M. Kitchin for petitioner. Mr. George W. Rea for respondent.
Galban & Co. v. United States
No. 14. Galban and Company, Appellants, v. The United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Submitted October 15, 1907. Decided October 21, 1907. Mr. Barry Mohun, Mr. W. W. Dudley and Mr. L. T. Michener for appellants. The Attorney Gener
Tilt v. Kelsey
TILT v. KELSEY, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE SURROGATES’ COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK AND STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 18. Argued January 28, 1907. Decided October 21, 1907. Where judicial proceedings in one State are rel
Raymond v. Chicago Edison Co.
RAYMOND, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CHICAGO EDISON COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAME v. SOUTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAME v. PEOPLE’S GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO CONSOLID
Raymondv v. Chicago Union Traction Co.
RAYMOND, TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, v. CHICAGO UNION TRACTION COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 115. Argued April 8, 9, 1907. Decided October 21, 1907. The provis
Lawson v. United States Mining Co.
LAWSON v. UNITED STATES MINING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 2. Argued October 11, 12, 1906. Decided October 21, 1907. One in possession of the surface of a mining claim under a patent from
Kersch v. City of Topeka
No. 3. Tony Kersch, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of Topeka. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. October 15, 1907. Mr. G. C. Clemens and Mr. C. A. Magaw for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
Hiscock v. American Woolen Co.
No. 148. Albert K. Hiscock, Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. American Woolen Company of New York. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. October 14, 1907. Mr. Will B. Crowley for appellant. Mr. Lee M. Fri
Stuart v. United States
No. 133. A. R. Stuart, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States. In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. October 14, 1907. Mr. W. W. Dudley and Mr. L. T. Michener for plaintiff, in érror. The Attorney General and The Solici
Revere Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Winthrop
No. 131. Revere Water Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Inhabitants of the Town of Winthrop. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. September 21, 1907. Mr. A. E. Pillsbury for plaintiff in error. Mr. Lmristo
North Chicago Street Railroad v. Chicago Consolidated Traction Co.
No. 737. No. 738, North Chicago Street Railroad Company et al., Petitioner, v. Chicago Consolidated Traction Company et al; and West Chicago Street Railroad Company et al; Petitioners, v. Chicago Consolidated Traction Company et al. May 27,
National Exchange Bank of Providence v. City of Superior
No. 716. National Exchange Bank of Providence, R. I., Petitioner, v. City of Superior. May 27, 1907. Mr. J. H. Caldwell for petitioner. Mr. Louis K. Luse for respondent.
Sauer v. City of New York
SAUER v. CITY OF NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK. No. 130. Argued March 21, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. While under the law of the State of New York the owner of land abutting on ' a street has easements of acc
Bernheimer v. Converse
BERNHEIMER v. CONVERSE. DREY AND BERNHEIMER v. CONVERSE. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UJSTÍTED STATES FOR . THE .SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Nos. 278, 279. Argued April 25, 26, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. This court in this case
Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co.
VICKSBURG v. VICKSBURG WATERWORKS COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 275. Argued April 24, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. A decree must be read in the light of the issues i
Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Blumer
IOWA RAILROAD LAND COMPANY v. BLUMER. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 207. Argued February 26, 27, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. Under the act of Congress of May 15, 1856, 11 Stat. 9, and the act of the legislature of
Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization of the Territory of Arizona
COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. TERRITORIAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. APPEAL PROM. THE SUPREME COTJRT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 280. Argued April 26, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. "While this court
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.