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
1909 Cases
264 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
Southern Railway Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN COMPANY. ERROR TO 'THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH . CIRCUIT. No. 104. Argued March 8, 9, 1909. Decided June 1, 1909. A carrier which is at s’ervice and expense in stopping good
Kinney v. Conant
No. 882. W. Frank Kinney, Collector, etc., Petitioner, v. Samuel Morris Conant et al., Executors, etc. May 24, 1909. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for petitioner. Mr. Walter F. Angelí and Mr. Frank H. Swan for respondents.
City of Owosso v. Warren Bros.
No. 868. City of Owosso, Petitioner, v. Warren Brothers Company. May 24, 1909. Mr. Henry N. Paul,t Jr., and Mr. Joseph C. Fraley for petitioner. Mr. W. K. Richardson and- Mr. James M. Head for respondent.
Grigsby v. Russell
No. 886. A. H. Grigsby, Petitioner, v. R. L. Russell et al., Administrators, etc. May 24, 1909. Mr. John A. Pitts- for petitioner. No appearance for respondents.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT “OF. APPEALS EOR THE- EIGHTH ■ CIRCUIT. No. 179. Argued April 23-26, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Judgment of thé lower court against a surety on the offi
In re Tobin
MATTER OF TOBIN, PETITIONER. MATTER OF KRISTIANSON. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST HONORABLE PAGE MORRIS, DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, AND AGAINST THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TH
In re Pearson
MATTER OF HENRY C. PEARSON, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No.-. Original. Submitted May 17, 1909. Decided. May 24, 1909. Leave to file petition for mandamus to the Chief Justice and the associate justic
Johnson v. Tennessee
ED JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ’UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. No. 2. Docketed March 19, 1906; Abatement announced May 24, 1909. Case abated on account of death of appellant.
United States v. Shipp
UNITED STATES v. SHIPP. -INFORMATION IN CONTEMPT. No. 5, Original. Argued March 2, 3, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. The court,, having already, held, 203 U. S. 563, that the information sufficiently set forth a contempt of the court tp punish
Joseph Wild & Co. v. Provident Life & Trust Co.
JOSEPH WILD & COMPANY v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE OF WATKINSON & COMPANY, BANKRUPTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ’ THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 190. Argued April 29, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Where a creditor,
Bryant v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co.
BRYANT, TRUSTEE OF NEWTON & CO., BANKRUPTS, v. SWOFFORD BROS. DRY GOODS CO. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 172. Argued April 22, 23, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. In this case, held, that the sale of a st
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. CHILES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OP THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. No. 168. Argued April 20, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Where plaintiff in error, defendant below, in a suit for penalty under a state
Tupiño v. La Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
TUPIÑO v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 148. Argued April 14, 15, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Distinct judgments in favor of or against distinct parties, though in the
Santiago v. Nogueras
SANTIAGO v. NOGUERAS. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 127. Submitted April 7, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. By the ratifications of the treaty of peace of 1898 with Spain, Porto Rico ceased to be subject t
Kreigh v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co.
KREIGH v. WESTINGHOUSE, CHURCH, KERR & COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 188. Argued April 27, 28, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Where at the time of removal to the Federal court neither of the pa
Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art Co.
BONG, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALFRED S. CAMPBELL ART COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 150. Argued April 15, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Under § 4952, Rev. Stat., as amended by the act of March 3, 189
Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank
CABRERA v. AMERICAN COLONIAL BANK APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 136. Submitted April 7, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. *The provisions of the Spanish Civil Code, which was in force in Porto Rico until
Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky
ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HART COUNTY, STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 144. Argued April 8, 1909 DecidedMay 24, 1909. Where the state court denied the. cpntention of plaintiff in error, de-' fen
Washington v. Oregon
STATE OF WASHINGTON v. STATE OF OREGON. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.’ No. 3, Original. Petition filed March 8, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127, reaffirmed’on rehearing. Although the volume of water and depth of
Rogers v. Jones
ROGERS v. JONES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI. No. 196. Submitted April 27, 1909. Decided May 24, 1909. Where the disposition of a Federal question is not necessary to the determination of the cause and the judgmen
West India Steamship Co. v. Clyde Commercial Steamships, Ltd.
No. 850. West India Steamship Company, Petitioner, v. The Clyde Commercial Steamships, Limited, Owner, etc. May 17, 1909. Mr. Charles S. Haight for petitioner. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. John M. Woolsey for respondent.
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Railroad Commission of Alabama
No. 842. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, Petitioner, v. The Railroad Commission of Alabama et al. May 17, 1909. Mr. Albert S. Brandéis, Mr. Gregory L. Smith, Mr. Henry L. •Stone and Mr. George W. Jones for petitioner. Mr. Alexan
J. I. Case Plow Works v. Bryant & Bond Co.
No. 833. J. I. Case Plow Works et al., Petitioners, v. Bryant & Bond Company. May 17, 1909. Mr. F. M. Etheridge and Mr. J. M. McCormick for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
Granite Bituminous Paving Co. v. Landis
GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING CO. v. LANDIS. ' APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MINNESOTA. No. 528. Submitted May 3, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. The Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of a suit agai
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.