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
Price v. Henkel
PRICE v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCÜIT COURT OP THE, UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 385. Argued January 7, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Haas v. Henkel, ante, p. 462, followed as to juri
Peckham v. Henkel
PECKHAM v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 366. Argued January 6, 7, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Haas v. Henkel, ante, p. 462, followed as to
Haas v. Henkel
HAAS v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 367. Argued January 6, 7, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Notwithstanding the hardship necessarily entaile
Pickett v. United States
PICKETT v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. No. 270. Submitted January 3, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. On the organization of a Territory into a State, Congress may — a
Friday v. Hall & Kaul Co.
FRIDAY v. HALL AND KAUL COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 68. Argued January 10, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. “Manufacturing,” as used in the Bankrupt Act of 1898, has no meaning from adjudic
Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers & Co.
TOXAWAY HOTEL COMPANY v. SMATHERS & CO. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 88. Submitted January 18, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. A- corporation engaged, principally in running hotels is not-a corp
Wright v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.
WRIGHT, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, v. GEORGIA RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY. APPEAL. FROM THE QIRCUIT-COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CEOIKUA.. No. 70. Argued January 11, 1910. Decided February 21, 1
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Gaston
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. GASTON. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. SAME. .ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF ALABAMA. Nos. 451, 466. No. 466. Argued December 16, 17, 1909. Submitted January 3, 1910. Decided Feb
Southern Railway Co. v. Greene
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SAMUEL E. GREENE. ERROR. TO.. THE SUPREME "COURT OF THE STATE- OF AUÁBAMA. No. 450. Argued December 16, 17, 1909. Decided February 21, 1910. Equal protection- of the laws means subjection to equal laws applying a
Forbes v. State Council of Virginia
FORBES v. STATE COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS OF THE' STATE OF VIRGINIA. No. 104. Argued January 25, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. An attempt t
Olmsted v. Olmsted
OLMSTED v. OLMSTED. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 102. Argued January 25, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. The law of a State in which land is situated controls and governs its descent, alienation and transfer, an
Harris v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant
HARRIS, TRUSTEE, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MT. PLEASANT. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR •THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No. 98. Argued January 21, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Quaere, and not. decided, -whether und
Saxlehner v. Wagner
SAXLEHNER v. WAGNER. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 81. Argued January 17, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. .The right to individual appropriation once lost is gone forever. Where a geographic or famil
United States v. Plowman
UNITED STATES v. PLOWMAN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 96. Argued January 20, 21, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. The authority for cutting timber from the public domain under the act of June 3, 1878, c.
Hawaiian Trust Co. v. Von Holt
HAWAIIAN TRUST COMPANY, LIMITED, ET AL., EXECUTOR, v. VON HOLT ET AL., TRUSTEES, SAME v. SAME. APPEALS PROM THE SUPREME COURT OE THE TERRITORY OE HAWAII. Nos. 106, 107. Argued January 26, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. A provision that a
Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City & County of San Francisco
LAUREL HILL CEMETERY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 100. Argued January 21, 24, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Great caution must be exercised by any tribunal in overruling,
Moxley v. Hertz
WM. J. MOXLEY, A CORPORATION, v. HERTZ, UNITED STATES COLLECTOR. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 398. Argued December 13, 14, 1909. Decided February 21, 1910. Where the function of a natural ingr
Albright v. Sandoval
ALBRIGHT v. SANDOVAL (NO. 2). API’10AIi FROM' THIO SUPREME COURT OF THIO TERRITORY OF NE\V MEXICO. ' ’ No. 118. Argued January 28, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Whore the decision of the Supreme Court of a Territory is based upon the con
Albright v. Sandoval
ALBRIGHT v. SANDOVAL. SANDOVAL v. ALBRIGHT. ERROR TO THE SUPREMfc COERT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. Nos. 116, 117. Argued January 28, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Where the final judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory-is not b
Penman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
PENMAN v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. CERTIORARI. TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 67. Argued January 7, 1910 Decided February 21, 1910. The rule of ejusdem generis is a rule of interpretation, and
Pendleton v. United States
PENDLETON v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 53. Argued January 21, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. The retention by the prosecuting authorities, without using it on the trial, of a statement made b
Fraenkl v. Hermanos
FRAENKL v. CERECEDO HERMANOS. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 411. Submitted January 10, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. • Where a bill of review is presented for filing within the period allowed, .
Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor
HANNIS DISTILLING COMPANY v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATER FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. No. 75. Argued January 12, 1910. Decided February 21, 1910. Where the unsoundncss of a Federal q
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Railroad Commissioners
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF KANSAS EX REL. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 38. Argued November 30, 1909. Decided February 21, 1910. The fact that a railroad company is chartere
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.