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
Anderson v. United Realty Co.
ANDERSON v. UNITED REALTY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. No. 27. Argued November 1, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Where there is a separable controversy and requisite diversity of citizenship it is the duty of
Sandoval v. Randolph
SANDOVAL v. RANDOLPH. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 4. Submitted October 26, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. A principal betrayed by his agent into paying for property an excess over the price for.which th
United States v. Fidelity Trust Co.
UNITED STATES v. FIDELITY TRUST COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 280. Argued November 15, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. A legacy'to pay .over net income to the legatee in periodical payments during the legatee’s life on whi
Grigsby v. Russell
GRIGSBY v. RUSSELL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 53. Argued November 10, 13, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. A condition in an insurance policy that it shall be void for non-payment of premiums mea
Ripley v. United States
RIPLEY v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. RIPLEY. .APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON RETURN TO MANDATE DIRECTING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. Nos. 498, 499. Submitted May 29, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Where the right of one claiming under
Glickstein v. United States
GLICKSTEIN v. UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 486. Submitted October 19, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Subdivision 9 of § 7 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and the immunity afforded
United States v. Eckstein
UNITED STATES v. ECKSTEIN. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEARS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT., No. 52. Argued November 10, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Section 7 of the Dingley Tariff Act of June 24, 1897', c. 11,30 Stat. 159, known as
Enriquez v. Enriquez
ENRIQUEZ v. ENRIQUEZ. (NO. 2.) APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 25. Argued October 31, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Where the record shows that the jurisdictional value is not made out by a preponderance of evid
Enriquez v. Enriquez
ENRIQUEZ v. ENRIQUEZ. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 24. Argued October 31, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Under § 10 of the act of July 1, 1902, e. 1369, 32 Stat. 695, this court can only review judgments o
Munsuri v. Fricker
MUNSURI v. FRICKER. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 21. Argued October 27, 30, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. Tefft, Weller & Co. v. Munsuri, ante, p. 114, followed to effect that the express provisio
Tefft, Weller & Co. v. Munsuri
TEFFT, WELLER & CO. v. MUNSURI. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 22. Argued October 30, 31, 1911. — Decided December 4, 1911. There is no appeal to this court from an order disallowing a claim made by
Bryan v. Ker
BRYAN, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF CHARLESTON v. KER, EXECUTRIX. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 3. Argued October 25, 26, 1911. — Decided November 20, 1911. Although a writ which the court has power to i
Richardson v. Harmon
RICHARDSON v. HARMON, RECEIVER OF THE TOLEDO TERMINAL AND RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES. POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP OHIO. No. 10. Argued April 25, 26, 1911. — Decided November 20, 1911. In construing
Hussey v. United States
HUSSEY, ADMINISTRATRIX OF CRANE, v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 32. Argued November 2, 1911. — Decided November 20, 1911. One claiming an interest in property and having knowledge of such claim is charged to consider
Curtin v. Benson
CURTIN v. BENSON. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA.. No. 1. Argued October 25, 1911. — Decided November 20, 1911. While one must come into equity with clean hands, a defendant invoki
Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 247. Argued October 11, 12, 1911. — Decided November 13, 1911. An artificial situs for purposes of taxation is not acquired by the
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros.
KALEM COMPANY v. HARPER BROTHERS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 26. Argued October 31, November 1, 1911. — Decided November 13, 1911. An exhibition of a series of photographs of persons and things, arr
Lenman v. Jones
LENMAN v. JONES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 19. Argued October 27, 1911. — Decided November 13, 1911. In the absence of fraud, ignorance of who the real vendee is does not relieve the vendor from speci
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. DIFFENBAUGH. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. F. H. PEAVEY & COMPANY. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Nos.
Sherman v. Goodwin
No. 23. Roger Sherman, Successor in Trust, and D. H. Pinney, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Libbie Goodwin. In error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. Submitted October 26, 1911. Decided November 6, 1911. Mr. Walter Bennett and Mr.
Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
OMAHA & COUNCIL BLUFFS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. APPEAL PROM THE COMMERCE COURT. No. 846. Motion for order to maintain the status quo pending appeal. Submitted October 30, 1911. — Decided November 6, 1911. Wh
Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co.
TROY BANK v. G. A. WHITEHEAD & COMPANY (INCORPORATED). 4.PPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. No. 566. Submitted October 9, 1911. — Decided November 6, 1911. When two or more plaintiffs, ha
Helm v. Zarecor
HELM v. ZARECOR. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ' FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. No. 395. Submitted October 9, 1911. — Decided November 6, 1911. In determining whether diversity ui citizenship exists to give juris
Finley v. California
FINLEY v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA. No. 15. Argued October 26, 1911. — Decided November 6, 1911. Whether a state statute denies equal protection of the laws by reason of classi
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.