Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 312,996+ 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
1910 Cases
268 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
Kenyon v. Fowler
KENYON v. FOWLER, RECEIVER OF AMERICAN EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF SYRACUSE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 87. Argued January 18, 1910. Decided January 24, 1910. Judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals aff
Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii
LOWREY v. TERRITORY OF HAWAII. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY .OF HAWAII. No. 469. Argued December 6, 1909. Decided January 24, 1910. The decision and opinion of this court in Lowrey v. Hawaii, 206 U. S. 206, construed and f
Wagg v. Herbert
WAGG v. HERBERT. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 29. Argued November 11, 1909. Decided January 24, 1910. In a suit in equity to have a deed declared a mortgage and in which fraud, oppression and undue influen
Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States
OLD NICK WILLIAMS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 26. Argued November 9, 10, 1909. Decided January 24, 1910. A writ of error is not actually brought until filed- in the court
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, v. THE STATE OF KANSAS EX REL. COLEMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 4. Argued March, 17, 18, 1909. Decided January 17, 1910. A statute of Kansas provided among ot
Walsh v. United States
No. 710. John R. Walsh, Petitioner, v. The United States. January 17, 1910. Mr. John S. Miller, Mr. Merritt Starr and Mr. E. C. Ritsher for petitioner. The Attorney General, The Solicitor General and Mr. E. W. Sims for respondent.
Mankin v. United States ex rel. Ludowici-Celadon Co.
MANKIN v. UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF LUDOWICI-CELADON COMPANY. ERROR' TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 167. Submitted January 7, 1910. Decided January 17, 1910. Under the labor and material law of February 24, 19
Brill v. Washington Railway & Electric Co.
BRILL v. WASHINGTON RAILWAY AND ELECTRIC COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT • OF COLUMBIA., No. 66. Argued December 10, 13, 1909. Decided January 17, 1910. Where a decree to which he is privy has established the'.righ
North Dakota ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson
THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. FLAHERTY v. HANSON, SHERIFF OF GRAND FORKS COUNTY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NORTH DAKOTA. No. 47. Submitted November 29, 1909. Decided January 17, 1910. A State cannot place a burden on a
Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
MACON GROCERY COMPANY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURÍ OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 351. Argued October 20, 21, 1909. Decided January 17, 1910. A suit brought by shippér&' to enjoin a railroad
The Steamship Folmina v. Jahn
No. 717. The Steamship Folmina, etc., Petitioner, v. Gustave A. Jahn et al. January 10, 1910. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr.. John M. Woolsey for petitioner. Mr. Frederick M. Brown for respondents.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United States ex rel. Pitcairn Coal Co.
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES EX REL. PITCAIRN COAL COMPANY. ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF AP- . PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 289. Argued October 18, 19, 1909. Decided January 10, 1910. Regulations wh
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 232. Argued October 15, 1909. Decided January 10, 1910. Interstate Commerce Co
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central Railroad
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 233. Argued October, 15, 1909. Decided January 10, 1910. In determining wheth
Haffner v. Dobrinski
HAFFNER v. DOBRINSKI. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA. No. 35. Submitted November 12, 1909. Decided January 10, 1910. In order that specific performance may be decreed on the ground of part performance the acts do
Hughes v. Collin County National Bank
No. 76. J. A. Hughes, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Collin County National Bank. January 7, 1910. Mr. Clayton C. Dorsey and Mr. William D. Hodges for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
United States v. Axman
No. 540. The United States, Plaintiff in Error, v. Rudolph Axman. January 3, 1910. The Attorney General and The Solicitor .General for plaintiff in error. . No appearance for defendant in error.
Van Sice v. Ibex Mining Co.
No. 703. C. L. Van Sice, Petitioner, v. The Ibex Mining Company. January 3, 1910. Mr. Edwin H. Park and Mr. Samuel Herrick for petitioner. Mr’. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., and Mr. Charles Cavender for respondent.
Huston v. Oklahoma ex rel. Haskell
HUSTON, JUDGE, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. HASKELL, GOVERNOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA. No. 325. Motion to dismiss submitted December 20, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. Writ of error to review judgment of highest
Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman
MECHANICAL APPLIANCE COMPANY v. CASTLEMAN. EKROR TP THE CIRCUIT. COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MISSOURI. No. 48. Argued December 3, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. Whether defendant was subject to service of process
City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.' No. 46. Argued December 2, 3, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. This court' will consider the nature
Tiglao v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 37. Argued November 1, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. Writ of error and not appeal is the proper method to bri
Elias v. Ramirez
ELIAS v. RAMIREZ. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 30. Submitted November 5, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. In this case this court, reviewing the evidence, reverses the territorial court and finds that there i
Komada & Co. v. United States
KOMADA & CO. v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 220. Argued November 29, 30, 1909. Decided January 3, 1910. The construction given by the Department charged with executing a tariff act is
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.