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
Mason v. United States
No. 810. Claude W. Mason, Petitioner, v. The United States. May 3, 1909. Mr. G. A. Hanson for petitioner. The Attorney General, The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fowler for respondent.
Eddy v. Eddy
No. 800. Walter S. Eddy et al., etc., Petitioners, v. Caroline M. Eddy. May 3, 1909. Mr. Watts S. Humphrey and Mr. Benton Hanchett for petitioners. Mr. Alfred Lucking for respondent.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Kennedy
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. v. KENNEDY. ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME - JUDICIAL DISTRICT'OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 817. Motion to dismiss or affirm. Submitted April 26, 1909. Decided May 3, 1909. Writ
Ex parte Heller
Ex parte ISAAC HELLER, PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No.-. Original. Submitted April 27, 1909. Decided May 3, 1909. Petition for leave to file petition for mandamus to compel the Circuit' Court of Appea
In re Winn
In re WINN. APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE HONORABLE SMITH MCPHERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, CENTRAL DIVISION, AND AGAINST THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHE
Manson v. Williams
MANSON v. WILLIAMS, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF HUDSON CLOTHING COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.' No. 169. Argued April 20, 21, 1909. Decided May 3, 1909. Where both the District Court and Circuit Court
Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad
DELAWARE AND HUDSON COMPANY v. ALBANY AND SUSQUEHANNA RAILROAD COMPANY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 416. Argued February 23, 24, 1909 Decided May 3, 1909. Equity rule No. 94, which is intended t
Strong v. Repide
STRONG v. REPIDE. ERROR, TO AND APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 110. Argued March 10, 11, 1909. Decided May 3, 1909. Although there is no technical finding of facts by the court of first instance of the Philippi
United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
THE UNITED STATES ex rel. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON COMPANY. SAME v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY. SAME v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY. SAME v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY. SA
Smith v. King of Arizona Mining & Milling Co.
No. 195. Elmer Smith et al., Executors, etc., Appellants, v. The King of Arizona Mining & Milling Company et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. April 27, 1909. Mr. J. F. Conroy for appellants. Mr. Eugene S. Ives
H. Mueller Manufacturing Co. v. Glauber
No. 809. H. Mueller Manufacturing Company, Petitioner, v. Joseph H. Glauber. April 26, 1909. Mr. Charles E. Pickard,, Mr. A. H. Adams and Mr. J. L. Jackson for petitioner. Mr. Charles C. Linthicum and Mr. W. Clyde Jones for respondent.
Logan v. Farmers' Deposit National Bank of Pittsburgh
LOGAN v. FARMERS’ DEPOSIT NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSBURGH. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTHS CIRCUIT.. No. 745. Motion, to dismiss or affirm. Submitted April 19, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. An appeal from thé Circuit Co
Donohue v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad
DONOHUE v. EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. • No. 516. Motion to dismiss or affirm. Submitted April 19, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizon
Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Southern Railway News Co.
FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY NEWS COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 165. Argued April 20, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Writ of error to review judgment- of the Court of Appe
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis
ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ¿THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 162. Argued April 19, 20, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Affirmed on authority of
Thomas v. South Side Elevated Railway Co.
THOMAS v. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OP ILLINOIS. No. 157. Argued April 16, 19, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Writ of error to review a judgment of the state court in a condemnation proceedi
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Williams
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY v. EDGAR C. WILLIAMS. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT .OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 154. Argued April 16, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Certificate dismissed on the authority of Ch
Sand Filtration Corp. of America v. Cowardin
SAND FILTRATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. COWARDIN. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 123. Argued April 6, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. In the absence of a clear showing of its incorrectness this court accep
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.
AMERICAN BANANA COMPANY v. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CXRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND circuit. No. 686. Argued April 12, 13, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. While a country may treat some relations between its own citizens as
North Carolina Mining Co. v. Westfeldt
No. 792. North Carolina Mining Company, Petitioner, v. G. R. Westfeldt et al. April 19, 1909. Mr. James H. Merrimon, Mr. Charles A. Moore, Mr. Joseph J. Hooker and Mr. Thomas S. Rollins for petitioner. Mr. Alfred S. Barnard for respondents
Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis
BOQUILLAS LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY v. CURTIS. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP ARIZONA. No. 133. Argued April 7, 1909. Decided April 19, 1909. Under § 3198, Rev. Stat. of Arizona of 1887, the common-law doctrine of riparian
Van Gieson v. Maile
VAN GIESON v. MAILE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF Hawaii. No. 121. Submitted April 6, 1909. Decided April 19, 1909. However vexatious the conduct of a litigant may be his property should ■not be sacrificed by reason of
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co.
LEEDS & CATLIN COMPANY v. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE COMPANY (NO. 2). CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 81. Argued January 18, 1909. Decided April 19, 1909. Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co.,
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co.
LEEDS AND CATLIN COMPANY v. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE. CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 80. Argued January 15, 18, 1909. Decided April 19, 1909. Where grave questions of fact are presented by the
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.