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
Garfield Memorial Hospital v. Macfarland
No. 460. The Garfield Memorial Hospital, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry B. F. Macfarland et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia. In error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. March 22, 1909. Mr. James H. Hayden for
Logan v. Farmers' Deposit National Bank of Pittsburgh
No. 745. Frank J. Logan et al., Petitioners, v. Farmers' Deposit National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al; and Rolling Mill Company of America et al., Petitioners, v. Canton Roll & Machine Company et al. No. 746. March 22, 1909. Mr. Hector.
Sass & Crawford v. Thomas
SASS & CRAWFORD v. THOMAS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 122. Submitted March 15, 1909. Decided March 22, 1909. On authority of Laurel Oil Co. v. Morrison, 212 U. S. 291, writ of error to review a judgmen
Missouri v. Kansas
STATE OF MISSOURI v. STATE OF KANSAS. IN EQUITY. No. 6, Original. Argued February 23, 1909. Decided March 22, 1909. The boundary line between, Missouri and Kansas is and remains, notwithstanding its shifting position by erosion, the middle
Gila Bend Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Linn
GILA BEND RESERVOIR & IRRIGATION COMPANY v. LINN. SAME v. GILA WATER COMPANY. No. 199 of October Term, 1897, and No. 226 of October Term, 1905. Submitted March 8, 1909. Decided March 15, 1909. Motions for leave to file petitions for leave t
Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. McSherry Manufacturing Co.
No. 734. Dowagiac Manufacturing Company, Petitioner, v. McSherry Manufacturing Company et al. March 8, 1909. Mr. Fred. L. Chappell and Mr. Morison R. Waite for petitioner. Mr. E. E. Wood and Mr. Joseph Wilby for respondents.
Mammoth Mining Co. v. Grand Central Mining Co.
MAMMOTH MINING COMPANY v. GRAND CENTRAL MINING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP UTAH AND THE DISTRICT COURT OP JUAB COUNTY, STATE OP UTAH. No. 97. Argued January 28, 1909. — Decided March 8, 1909. In reviewing the judgmen
Macfadden v. United States
Decisions on Petitions for .Writs of Certiorari from February 24, to June 1, 1909. No. 720. Bernarr Macfadden, Petitioner, v. The United States. March 1, 1909. Mr. Henry M. Earle for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondent.
In re McWilliams
MATTER OF FRANK McWILLIAMS, PETITIONER. motion for Leave to file petition for writ of. prohibition DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF. THE. ■ UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW. JERSEY. No.-. Original. Submitted February 23,
In re Hudson Oil & Supply Co.
MATTER OF HUDSON OIL & SUPPLY CO., PETITIONER. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No.-. Original. Submitted February 23
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sowers
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. SOWERS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 64. Argued January 8, 1909. Decided March 1, 1909. Where the opinion of the sta
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Wilson
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. WILSON. ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OF THE CITY OF RADFORD, STATE OF VIRGINIA. No. 65. Argued January 11, 1909. Decided March 1, 1909. To give this court jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stat., not only m
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Brown
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 74. Argued January 13, 14, 1909. Decided March 1, 1909. A life insurance company which has several hundre
Rusch v. Escanaba Timber Land Co.
No. 119. Albert H. Rusch, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Escanaba Timber Land Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. February 26, 1909. Mr. E. C. Chapin and Mr, O. H. Reed for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. C. Lancaster fo
Martinez v. La Asociacion de Senoras Damas del Santo Asilo de Ponce
MARTINEZ v. LA ASOCIACION DE SENORAS DAMAS DEL SANTO ASILO DE PONCE. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 83. Argued January 21, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. All relations between Spain and Porto Rico
Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. United States ex rel. Gibson
DAVIDSON BROS. MARBLE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES ON THE RELATION OF GIBSON. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN -DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 78. Argued January 15, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. U. S. Fidelity G
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Calhoun
ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. CALHOUN. ERROR TO AND APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. No. 71. Argued January 12, 13, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. Although defendant may have been originally
Mercer v. Monitor Drill Co.
No. 617. H. V. Mercer et al., Trustees, etc., Appellants, v. Monitor Drill Company.
Toy Toy v. Hopkins
TOY TOY v. HOPKINS, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP WASHINGTON. No. 49. Argued December 9, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. After the Circuit Court of the United- States
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Bourman
TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. BOURMAN. IN ERROR TO THE' CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE • frlFTH CIRCUIT,' No. 56. Argued January 6, 7, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. The engine’er of a train, and the section foreman, are fellów-s
American Express Co. v. United States
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. NATIONAL EXPRESS COMPANY v. SAME. UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY v. SAME. WELLS, FARGO AND COMPANY v. SAME. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
Mullan v. United States
MULLAN v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL* FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 82. Argued January 20, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. A commissioned officer in the Navy can waive the provisions of art. 60 of § 1624, Rev. Stat., and allow proceedings of a
United States v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STAÍES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 285. Argued December 16, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. Under the Elkins Law o
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United States
NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES (NO. 2). ERROR TO .THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF'NEW YORK. No. 69. Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. New Yo
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.