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
1911 Cases
217 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
Wilson-Moline Buggy Co. v. Hawkins
No. 106. Wilson-Moline Buggy Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. B. E. Hawkins. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Submitted for the plaintiff in error December 11, 1911. Decided December 18, 1911. Mr. Almon. W. Bulkl'ey a
City of Chicago v. Sturges
CITY OF CHICAGO v. STURGES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 39. Argued November 6, 1911. — Decided December 18, 1911. The question of validity of a state statute under the state constitution is foreclosed in this co
Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co.
ACME HARVESTER COMPANY v. BEEKMAN LUMBER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MISSOURI. No. 9. Argued April 25, 1911. — Decided December 18, 1911. The denial of a right claimed under the judgment of a Federal court lays the f
Mayer v. American Security & Trust Co.
MAYER v. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR OF MAYER. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 77. Argued December 5, 1911. — Decided December 18, 1911. Equitable titles are subject to devise and if not spe
Lewers & Cooke, Ltd. v. Atcherly
LEWERS AND COOKE, LIMITED, v. ATCHERLY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. No. 69. Argued December 4, 1911. — Decided December 18, 1911. Where one asks the aid of a court of chancery in executing a former decree, he t
United States ex rel. Kinney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
UNITED STATES AT THE RELATION OF KINNEY v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 664. Motion to dismiss or affirm. Submitted December 4, 1911.— Decided December 18, 191
Ex parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York
EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION. Original. Motion for leave to file petition. Submitted December 4, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. One who
United States v. Morgan
UNITED STATES v. MORGAN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 463. Argued October 19, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. It is not a condition precedent to prosecutions for violation of
Consaul v. Cummings
CONSAUL ET AL, ADMINISTRATORS OF MOYERS, v. CUMMINGS, ADMINISTRATOR OF EDMONDS. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 38. .rgued November 6, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. The law implies equality between par
United States v. Garbish
UNITED STATES v. GARBISH. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA. No. 362. Argued November 7, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. Under the act of August 1,1892,27 Stat. 340, c. 352, restricting
Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA v. RAMSEY. ERROR TO THE SXJPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIÍANSAS. No. 56. Submitted November 8, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. Although a statute increasing the liability of corporations may, as^ to corporati
Union Pacific Railroad v. Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. MASON CITY AND FORT DODGE RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FRQM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE . EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 31. Argued November 2, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. The object of the provisions in a
Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell
MUTUAL LOAN COMPANY v. MARTELL. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS. No. 29. Submitted October 27, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. The validity of police regulations depends upon the circumstances of each case, whet
Chicago Junction Railway Co. v. King
CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY v. KING. ERROR to the circuit COURT of appeals for the seventh circuit. No. 34. Argued November 2, 3, 1911. — Decided December 11, 1911. The repugnancy of the Safety Appliance Law to the Constitution is not
Struckmann v. United States
No. 57. Conrad T. Struckmann and Ernst C. H. W. Waege, Appellants, v. The United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Argued November 13, 1911. Decided December 4, 1911. Mr. Edward S. Hatch, Mr. Vincent P. Donihee and Mr. Walter F. Welc
Union Pacific Railroad v. Updike Grain Co. & Crowell Lumber & Grain Co.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UPDIKE GRAIN COMPANY AND CROWELL LUMBER AND GRAIN COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356. Argued October 18, 1911; — Decided December 4, 1911. Interst
Banker Bros. v. Pennsylvania
BANKER BROTHERS COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. ÉRROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF . PENNSYLVANIA, No. 72. Argued November 17, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. The relation of vendor and vendee, and not that of principal
United States ex rel. Turner v. Fisher
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. TURNER v. FISHER, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 60. Argued November 14, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Where, under the provisions of acts of C
United States v. Congress Construction Co.
UNITED STATES v. CONGRESS CONSTRUCTION CO. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 63. Argued November 14, 16, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is in issu
Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Co. v. City of Olathe
MISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OLATHE. (No. 3.) ERROR TO' SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 728. Motion to dismiss. Submitted November 13, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Decided on authority of preceding
Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Co. v. City of Olathe
MISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS. (No. 2.) ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 727. Motion to dismiss. Submitted November 13, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. When the state court' g
Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Co. v. City of Olathe
MISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 726. Motion to dismiss. Submitted November 13, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Unless it appears from the recor
United States v. Munday
UNITED STATES v. MUNDAY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. . No. 593. Argued October 25, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Section 2350, Rev. Stat., is, by §§ 1 and 4 of the act of April
United States v. Stever
UNITED STATES v. STEVER. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR t „ THE- WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. No. 448. Argued October 20,. 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Congress will.not be supposed to make the same offense indic
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.