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
Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergh
DURYEA POWER COMPANY, BANKRUPT, v. STERNBERGH. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 29. Argued November 2, 1910. Decided November 14, 1910. Section 256 of the Bankruptcy Law only .gives a right of appeal to th
Richardson v. Ainsa
RICHARDSON v. AINSA, ADMINISTRATOR OF ELY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 28. Argued November 2, 1910. Decided November 14, 1910. Notwithstanding the contention of appellant in this case, the decision of this
International Textbook Co. v. Peterson
INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK COMPANY v. PETERSON. SAME v. LYNCH. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT. No. 3. No. 27. Submitted October 24, 1910. Decided November 7, 1910. Submit
Kerfoot v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
KERFOOT v. FARMERS’ AND MERCHANTS’ BANK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 6. Argued October 25, 1910. Decided November 7, 1910. In the absence of clear expression of legislative intention to the contrary, a conveyanc
Ong Chang Wing v. United States
ONG CHANG WING v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 418. Argued October 21, 1910. Decided November 7, 1910. As applied to criminal- procedure, if the accused has been heard in a court of competent juri
The Ira M. Hedges
THE IRA M. HEDGES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 18. Argued October 27, 1910. Decided November 7, 1910. Where the decree of the lower court is founded on denial of jurisdictio
Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux
RICKEY LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY v. MILLER AND LUX. SAME v. WOOD. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 4, 5. Argued January 18, 19, 1910. Restored to the docket for re-argument January 31, 1910. Reargued Octo
Corrigan v. Kansas City
No. 44. Bernard Corrigan et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Kansas City et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. November 4, 1910. Mr. O. H. Dean for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
Gage v. Riverside Trust Co.
No. 33. Matthew Gage and Jane Gage, Appellants, v. Riverside Trust Company, Limited, et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. November 1, 1910. Mr. William B. Mathews for appellants.
Dewar v. Mowinckel
No. 739. James Dewar et al., Petitioners, v. J. Ludwig Mowinckel. October 31, 1910. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin and Mr. Charles B. Hickox for petitioners. No appearance for respondent.
Jennings v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railway Co.
JENNINGS v. PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE AND WASHINGTON RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 10. Submitted April 26, 1910. Decided October 31, 1910. In the absence of an extending order the trial court
Holt v. United States
HOLT v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 231. Argued October 13, 14, 1910. Decided October 31, 1910. Where the acts constituting the assault are alleged to have been
Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. United States
No. 172. The Colorado & Southern Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. October 24, 1910. Mr. E. E. Whitted for plaintiff in error. The At
Heinze v. United States
No. 698. Arthur P. Heinze, Petitioner, v. The United States. October 24, 1910. Mr. John Mason Brown for petitioner. The Attorney General and Mr. Felix Frankfurter for respondent.
United Steamship Co. v. Societe Nouvelle d'Armement
No. 661. United Steamship Company, Claimant, etc., Petitioner, v. Societe Nouvelle d’Armement. October 24, 1910. Mr. Charles Page, Mr. Edward J. McCutchen and Mr. Samuel Knight for petitioner. Mr. William Denman for respondent.
Pochin v. City & County of Denver
No. 688. William J. Pochin, Appellant, v. The City and County of Denver, Colo., et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Submitted October 17, 1910. Decided October 24, 1910. Mr. Harvey Riddell
Stuart v. Union Pacific Railroad
No. 694. Thomas B. Stuart et al., Petitioners, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. October 17, 1910. Mr. L. T. Michener, Mr. Thomas B. Stuart and Mr. Joseph C. Helm for petitioners. Mr. Clayton C. Dorsey, Mr. William V. Hodges, Mr. Maxwell E
Grace v. Burlingham
No. 699. Mary D. Grace, Petitioner, v. Charles C. Burlingham et al., Trustees. October 17, 1910. Mr. Frederic C. Scofield, Mr. Theodore E. Hancock and Mr. William J. Grace for petitioner. Mr. Charles Stone, Mr. Irving L. Ernst and Air. D. R
Triplett v. United States
No. 565. Aquilla Triplett, Petitioner, v. The United States. October 17, 1910. Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., Mr. R. S. Hall and Mr. John W. Lacey for petitioner. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent.
Richards v. United States
No. 562. Bartlett Richards, Petitioner, v. The United States. October 17, 1910. Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., Mr. R. S. Hall and Mr. John W. Lacey for petitioner. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent.
Ex parte Lancer
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Patrick Lancer, Petitioner. Submitted October 11, 1910. Decided October 17, 1910. Mr. Wilford H. Smith for the petitioner. No one opposing.
United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 11. Argued April 26, 27, 1910. Decided October 17, 1910. The grant made by the act of May 12, 1864, e. 84
St. Benedict's Abbey v. Marion County
No. 240. St. Benedict’s Abbey, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Marion County, Oregon, et al. In error'to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. October 11, 1910. Mr. John A. Carson for plaintiff in. error. No appearance for defenda
Consolidated Land Co. v. Gilchrist
No. 200. Consolidated Land Company, Appellant, v. Albert W. Gilchrist, Governor of the State of Florida, et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. October 11, 1910. Mr. J. C. Cooper and Mr. E.J. L’
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.