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
Wynne v. United States
WYNNE v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. No. 449. Argued February 28, March 1, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. The words “out of the jurisdiction of any particular State” as used in
Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. City of Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES FARMING AND MILLING COMPANY v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 137. Argued March 10, 11, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. In this case both parties claim under Spanish or Mexican title
Southern Railway Co. v. Miller
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MILLER. EBROB TO TM,' i.'OÜBT Oí? APPEALS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 122. Argued March 3, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. Far the purp^.v’s vi determining the removability of á cause, the case most be de .med to b
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Nebraska
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA. SAME v. SAME EX REL. FARMERS’ ELEVATOR COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NEBRASKA. Nos. 127, 128. Argued March 7, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. ' There are constitution
Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston
BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. CITY OF BOSTON. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 99. Argued March 2, 3, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. This court accepts the construction of a state statute as to condemnation of la
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. v. United States
CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 133. Argued March 9, 10, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. The acts of May 15,1856, e. 28,11 Stat. 9; March 3,1857, c. 99,11 Stkt, 19
Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
DAVIS v. CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP IOWA. No. 123. Argued March 3, 4, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. Even though the certificate is
Todd v. Romeu
TODD v. ROMEU. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES , POR PORTO RICO. No. 408. Submitted January 10, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. In Porto Rico a cautionary notice .must be filed in accordance with the local law. in order to
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Arkansas
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 111. Argued January 26, 27, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. Where the constitutional defenses asserted in 'the answer, and em
Unity Banking & Saving Co. v. Bettman ex rel. Holzman & Co.
UNITY BANKING AND SAVING COMPANY v. BETT-MAN, TRUSTEE OF HOLZMAN & CO., BANKRUPTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 126. Argued March 4, 7, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. As against the true owner, a right o
Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas
SOUTHWESTERN OIL COMPANY v. STATE OF TEXAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 119. Argued March 2, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. This court will not consider whether a state statute is unconstitutional under provisions of
International Textbook Co v. Pigg
INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK COMPANY v. PIGG. • EBBOB TO THE SUPBEME COURT OP THE STATE OP KANSAS. No. 15. Argued April 21, 1909. Decided April 4, 1910. The reasonable construction of a state statute relating to foreign corporations doing busines
Williams v. Arkansas
WILLIAMS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OP ARKANSAS. No. 138. Submitted March 11, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. State legislation which in carrying out a public purpose is limited in its application, is not a d
Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell
FRELLSEN AND COMPANY v. CRANDELL, REGISTER OF THE STATE LAND OFFICE OF LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP LOUISIANA. No. 129. Argued March 7, 8, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. Whether a patent is wrongfully issued or can be
Huguley v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
No. 706. William T. Huguley, Petitioner, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company et al. April 4, 1910. Mr. John M. Thurston and Mr. Frederick P. Myers for the petitioner. 'Mr. John E. Hartridge for the respondent.
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Adams
SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. ADAMS, STATE REVENUE AGENT. APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 727. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted March 21, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910. Appeal from the
Coastwise Transportation Co. v. The Steamship Edda
No. 781. The Coastwise Transportation Company, Owner, etc., Petitioner, v. The Steamship Edda, etc. March 21, 1910. Mr. Edward E. Blodgett for the petitioner. Mr. Edward S. Dodge for the respondent.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Wise
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. WISE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP TEXAS. No. 177. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted March 14, 1910. Decided March 21, 1910. Writ, of error to review a judgment of the state cour
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hollan
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. HOLLAN. ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 161. Motion, to dismiss or affirm submitted March 14, 1910. Decided March 21, 1910. W
Maytin v. Vela
MONSERRATE GARCIA MAYTIN v. VELA. BEATRIZ DE LOS ANGELES, WIDOW OF A LOS, v. MONSERRATE AND DOMINGA GARCIA MAYTIN AI’I’BALR FROM TIIIC SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO. Nos. 90, 245. Argued March 8, 9, 1910. Decided March 21, 1910. In the absenc
Williams v. First National Bank
WILLIAMS v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PAULS VALLEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 130. Argued March 9, 1910. Decided March 21, 1910. A question of a Federal nature is raised by the contention, if denied by the state
Edward Thompson Co. v. American Law Book Co.
No. 353. Edward Thompson Company, Appellant, v. American Law Book Company. March 18, 1910. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for appellant. Mr. Walter Large for the appellant. Mr. William B. Hale for the appellee.
Will v. Tornabells
WILL v. TORNABELLS. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. APPEAL FROM No. 63. Submitted December 10, 1909. Decided March 14, 1910. Findings of, the lower court will not, where another construction is possible, be so constr
United States v. Grimaud
UNITED STATES v. GRIMAUD. UNITED STATES v. INDA. E-RROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Nos. 490, 491. Argued February 28, 1910. Decided March 14, 1910. Qúare and not decided by this court
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.