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
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
Globe Asphalt Co. v. Union Construction & Development Co.
No. 929. Globe Asphalt Company, Petitioner, v. Union Construction & Development Company et al. May 31, 1910. Mr. E. V. Brookshire and Mr. Joseph H. Call for the petitioner. Mr. William Grant, Mr. Harry H. Hall and Mr. J. Blanc Monroe for th
United States ex rel. Kelley v. Peters
No. 896. The United States ex rel. Annie Kelley, Petitioner, v. J. M. Peters, Sheriff, etc. May 31, 1910. Mr. H. Winship Wheatley for the petitioner. Mr. William M. Acton for the respondent.
United States v. Sewell
UNITED STATES v. SEWELL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. No. 181. Argued April 29, 1910. Decided May 31, 1910. United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333, followed. Before the Government is r
American National Bank v. Tappan
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON v. TAPPAN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 837. Submitted May 16,1910. Decided May 31, 1910. Judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing a case for wan
Morgan's Louisiana v. Street
MORGAN’S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD & STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. STREET. ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 813. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910. Decided May
Shedd v. Illinois ex rel. Healy
SHEDD v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. HEALY, STATE’S ATTORNEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.' No. 708. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910. Decided May 31, 1910. A judgment of ouster rendered
In re Gruetter
EX PARTE: MATTER OF GRUETTER, PETITIONER. MANDAMUS. No. 9, Original. Submitted April 11, 1910. Decided May 31, 1910. Where the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine questions presented on a motion to remand a case to the state court a
Maryland v. West Virginia
STATE OF MARYLAND v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA. ON SETTLEMENT OE DECREE. No. 1, Original. Forms of decree and briefs submitted April 20,1910.— Decree settled May 31, 1910. Length of time that raises a right by prescription in private parties,
Owen v. Dudley & Michener
OWEN v. DUDLEY & MICHENER. . ERROR TO THE COURT OP. APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 142. Argued April 7, 8, 1910. Decided May 18, 1910. In this case a contract made by the attorney of record with associate .counsel for professional
Ex parte Morse
EX PARTE MORSE, PETITIONER. MOTION FOB LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOB A WBIT OF HABEAS COBPUS. No. —, Original. Submitted May 2, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that peti
Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky
BROWN-FORMAN CO. v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. ' No. 6. Argued April 11, 12, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. This court accepts the construction by the highest court of the State that the t
Wallach v. Rudolph
WALLACH v. RUDOLPH ET AL., COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 148. Argued April 12, 13, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Jurisdiction to íoview, when dependent on amount, is
Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REALTY CO. v. RUDOLPH ET AL., COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE. DISTRICT OP . COLUMBIA. No. 157. Argued Aprii 12, 13, 1910. Decided.May 16, 1910. Under the act of February 9, 1
Freeman v. United States
FREEMAN v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. . No. 156. Submitted April 11, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Provisions carried into the Philippine bill of rights ^by the statute of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 St
Southern Railway Co. v. King
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE KING. SAME v. INEZ KING. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS- FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 140, 141. Argued April 6, 7, 1910, Decided May 16,1910. The right to regulate interstate commerce is excl
Holmgren v. United States
HOLMGREN v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE' COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 132. Argued March 9, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. The validity, under Art. I. §8^ cl. 4, of the Constitution, of the acts of Congress regulating natura
Javierre v. Central Altagracia
JAVIERRE v. CENTRAL ALTAGRACIA. APPEAL FROM THE -DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO.- No. 171. ' Argued April 26, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Where a proviso carves an exception, dependent on a- condition, subsequent, out of
Stoffela v. Nugent
STOFFELA v. NUGENT. ' APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 179. Argued April 28, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. One committing a fraud does not become an outlaw and caput lupinum. Although one by reason of. fraud may
H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher
H. C. COOK COMPANY v. BEECHER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POE THE DISTRICT OP CONNECTICUT. No. 65*3. Submitted March 14, 1910. Decided May 16, 191¿ An- action on & j udgment obtained in a patent case is not itself a sui
Souffront v. La Compagnie Des Sucreries De Porto Rico
SOUFFRONT, WIDOW OF FLEURIAN, v. LA COMPAGNIE DES SUCRERIES DE PORTO RICO. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 'FOR PORTO RICO. No. 155. Argued April 15, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Where the vendors bring an action in their ow
Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co.
KIDD, DATER AND PRICE COMPANY v. MUSSELMAN GROCER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. No. 149. Argued April 13, 14; 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. Where this court has held a state statute constitutional it will follo
Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy
HUTCHINSON, PIERCE & CO. v. LOEWY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 182. Argued April 29, 1910. Decided May 16, 1910. In a suit in the Circuit Court under the Trade-mark Act where diverse citizenship does
Whitin Machine Works v. Houghton
No. 873. Whitin Machine Works, Petitioner, v. Lewis T. Houghton. May 2, 1910. Mr. William A. Jenner and Mr. Edmund Wetmore for the petitioner. Mr. Louis W. Southgate and Mr. W. K. Richardson for the respondent.
Brady v. Bernard
BRADY v. BERNARD & KITTINGER. APPEAL- FROM, ANO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO, THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 501. Petition for certiorari and motion to dismiss submitted April 26, 1910 Decided May 2, 191
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.