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
Yadkin River Power Co. v. Whitney Co.
YADKIN RIVER POWER CO. v. WHITNEY CO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 835. Motion, to dismiss or affirm. Submitted May 3, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Writ of error to review judgment of the state court in a c
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McDonald
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. McDONALD, ADMINISTRATOR. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS' OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 158. Argued April 19, 1909, Decided May 17, 1909. The Federal question must be properly and seasonably set up in th
Peck v. Tribune Co.
PECK, PETITIONER, v. TRIBUNE COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO' THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS ■ POR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 191. Argued April 29, 30, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. The publication of a portrait-with a statement thereunder imports ' .that
City of Des Moines v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
CITY OF DES MOINES v. DES MOINES CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. No. 171. Argued April 21, 22, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. A resolution of a municipal council, dire
Leech v. Louisiana
LEECH v. STATE OF LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP LOÚISIANA. No. 152. Submitted April 15, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. The Mississippi river is a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana from below the port of Natchez'as far north
Laborde v. Ubarri
LABORDE v. UBARRI. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED ‘ STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 194. Argued April 30, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. In the courts of the United States attachment is but an incident to a • suit and falls unless the su
Ubarri v. Laborde
UBARRI v. LABORDE. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT .COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 137. Argued April 7, 8, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Judgment reversed on the facts, it being based on allegations of fraud and corruptioh. which this c
Dupree v. Mansur
DUPREE v. MANSUR. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 124. Argued April 6, 7, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where it is established law of a State, as it is of Texas, that when a debt is barred by limitations
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Eastin & Knox
TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. EASTIN & KNOX. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 177. Argued April 23, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. The right of a defendant who has petitioned for removal of a case to the Federal
District of Columbia v. Brooke
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. BROOKE. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 117. Argued April 7, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where no objection was made to a technical defect in the return which could have been rectified
United States ex rel. Parish v. MacVeagh
UNITED STATES ex rel. PARISH v. MacVEAGH, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ERROR . TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 111. Argued March 11, 12, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. If the reference by Congress to the Secretary'of the
Collins v. O'Neil
COLLINS v. O’NEIL, SHERIFF. SAME v. THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. ERROR-TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ’ CALIFORNIA. No
Gray v. Noholoa
GRAY v. NOHOLOA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. No. 174. Submitted April 20, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Which is the correct English translation of a will written in the Hawaiian language is a pure question of fa
Welch v. Swasey
WELCH v. SWASEY ET AL., AS THE BOARD OF APPEAL FROM THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF BOSTON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME • JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 153. Argued April 15, 16, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Whether a st
Woodwell v. United States
WOODWELL v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL- FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 143. Argued April 8, 12, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where there is no specific provision in the appropriation for government work and there is no intention of the department
Goodrich v. Ferris
GOODRICH v. FERRIS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE .UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT- OF CALIFORNIA. No. 120. Argued March 19, 22, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. The mere fact that a.constitutional question is alleged does not suf
J. M. Ceballos & Co. v. United States
J. M. CEBALLOS & COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 108. Argued March 10, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where a contract requires construction as to the mode of its performance, a similar contract in writing betwee
Merchants National Bank of Baltimore v. United States
MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE v. UNITED STATES. .APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF. CLAIMS. No. 20. Argued March 12, 15, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where two sections of the Revised Statutes when taken together are not free from' ambiguity,
Smithsonian Institution v. St. John
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION v. ST. JOHN, EXECUTOR OF WALLACE C. ANDREWS, DECEASED. ERROR TO THE SUPREME-COURT OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK. No. 613. Argued April 5, 6, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Quaere: Where a petition to the highest court of the
Whitcomb v. White
WHITCOMB v. WHITE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. No. 185. Argued April-28, 29, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Where a decision of the Land Department rests 'on the priority of équitable rights ;of a contestant it is conclus
In re Riggs
In re MARY HATCH RIGGS. APPLICATION AS ADMINISTRATRIX OÍ? THE GOODS, CHATTELS AND CREDITS OF CLARENCE B. RIGGS, DECEASED, IN BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 'SITUATED, FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE HONORABLES GEORGE C. HOLT
Compton v. Alabama
COMPTON v. STATE OF ALABAMA. ERROR’ TO THE SUPREME COURT OP ALABAMA. No. 175. Argued April 20, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909. Unless the State demanding the return of an alleged fugitive from justice-furnishes a copy of an indictment against t
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Tucker
No. 347. The Texas & Pacific Railway Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. H. Tucker, Guardian, etc. In error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas. May 3, 1909. Mr. John F. Dillon
Lisman v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.
No. 816. Frederick J. Lisman et al., Petitioners, v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Company et al. May 3, 1909. Mr.. J. J. Darlington, Mr. Delos McCurdy and Mr. Charles K. Allen■ for petitioners'. Mr. Edward M. Hyzer for respondent
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.