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
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United States
NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. No. 57. Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. Congress can im
Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co.
BAGLEY v. GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 96. Argued January 27, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. While the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not final under act
The Eugene F. Moran
THE EUGENE F. MORAN. CERTIFICATES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 87, 88. Argued January 22, 25, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. Where two tugs and two scows in tow of one of the tugs are all in fault for a c
Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church
SANTOS v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, PARISH OF TAMBOBONG. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 73. Submitted January 13, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. A finding by the Supreme Court of the Philippine I
Cariño v. Insular Government
CARIÑO v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE . ISLANDS. No. 72. Argued January 13, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. 'Writ of error is the general, and appeal the exceptional, metho
Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co.
FREDERIC L. GRANT SHOE COMPANY v. W. M. LAIRD COMPANY. ERROR TO’ THE BISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 35. Argued December 2, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. The time within which a writ of error
Greenameyer v. Coate
GREENAMEYER v. COATE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 100. Submitted January 4, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. When the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction of a land contest and grants a rehearing he
McDaniel v. Traylor
McDANIEL v. TRAYLOR APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNIT,ED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS. • No. 70. Submitted January 12, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. Where a number of claims are so tied together by combination or c
Railroad Commission v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA v. CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 182. Argued October 20, 21, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. Where
North Shore Boom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co.
NORTH SHORE BOOM AND DRIVING COMPANY v. NICOMEN BOOM COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 107. Argued January 29, February 1, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. A State, in the absence of any statute by Congress
Harten v. Löffler
HARTEN v. LÖFFLER. ■ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 91. Argued January 26, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. In an action by the vendee for damages, although the amount recovered is less than $5,000, if the ven
Bradford v. Morrison
BRADFORD v. MORRISON. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE. TERRITORY OP ARIZONA. No. 60. Argued January 7, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. The title of a locator to a mining claim located under § 2322, Rev. Stat., is not only property, bu
In re Dunn
MATTER OF DUNN. APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. MEEK, DISTRICT JUDGE &C. No. 10, Original. Argued January 11, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. As a corporation, created by act of Congress derives all its r
Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank
FRITZLEN v. BOATMEN’S BANK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME .COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS.- No. 99. Argued January 28, 29, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. If, after an order to remand has been made, it results, from the subsequent pleadings or conduc
The Folmina
THE FOLMINA. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE • SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 84. Argued January 21, 22, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. When goods which were received in good order on board a vessel under a bill of lading agree
Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas
HAMMOND PACKING COMPANY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARKANSAS. No. 54. Argued February 24, 25, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. The right of a State to prevent foreign corporations from continuing to do b
Nielsen v. Oregon
NIELSEN v. STATE OF OREGON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON. No. 593. Argued January 18, 19, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. The concurrent jurisdiction given by Congress to the States of Oregon and Washington over the Co
American Express Co. v. Mullins
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY v. MULLINS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTON COUNTY, STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 77. Argued January 14, 15, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. Where in the state court defendant distinctly claimed that a recovery would
Juragua Iron Co. v. United States
JURAGUA IRON COMPANY, LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.. No. 34. Argued December 2, 3, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. No action can be maintáined against the United'States for the destruction or taking of propert
Laurel Oil & Gas Co. v. Morrison
LAUREL OIL AND GAS COMPANY v. MORRISON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EÓR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 198. Argued October 14, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. Where a statute provides for an appeal or a.writ of error to a specific co
E. C. Atkins & Co. v. Moore
E. C. ATKINS & COMPANY v. MOORE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. APPEAL FROM AND IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 86. Argued January 22, 1909, Decided February 23, 1909. Proceedings under the Trade-Mark Act of Febr
Johnson v. Mueser
JOHNSON v. MUESER. ERROR TO'THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 67. Argued January 12, 1909. Decided February 23, 1909. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. I, followed to effect that decisions of the Court of Appeals of the Distric
Thomas v. Texas
THOMAS v. STATE OF TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 6. Argued November 8, 1908. Decided February 23, 1909. Where neither the constitutionality of the state statute, nor the interpretation thereof by
McCarthy v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.
No. 684. Timothy McCarthy et al., Petitioners, v. The Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Company et al. February 1,1909.
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.