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
Collier v. Smaltz
No. 571. David A. Collier et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. J. G. Smaltz and Iowa Railroad Land Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 23, 1911. Decided October 30, 1911. Mr
Southern Railway Co. v. United States
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR . ■ THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. No. 28. Argued March 9, 10, 1911 — Decided October 30, 1911. The Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, 27
Virginia v. West Virginia
VIRGINIA v. WEST VIRGINIA. IN EQUITY. No. 3. Original. Motion to proceed with the further hearing and determination of the case. Submitted October 10, 1911. — Motion overruled October 30, 1911. Even if the question in litigation is importan
United States v. Plyler
UNITED STATES v. PLYLER. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 440. Argued October 19, 1911. — Decided October 30, 1911. It is not essential to.charge or prove an actual financial o
United States v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad
UNITED STATES v. BALTIMORE AND OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY. •ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 464. Argued October 19, 1911. — Decided October 30, 1911. Courts are not inclined to
Gilland v. United States
No. 361. Robert Gilland, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District' of South Dakota. Argued October 12, 1911. Decided October 24, 1911. Mr. Louis W. Crofoot for the plainti
J. A. Scriven Co. v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.
No. 299. J. A. Scriven Company, Appellant, v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted October 18, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Mr. Arthur v.
Moser v. Layman
No. 639. S. L. Moser, Appellant, v. Edwin S. Layman. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the
Bryan v. Layman
No. 636. W. S. Bryan, Appellant, v. Edwin S. Layman. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad v. Shohoney
No. 497. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ora T. Shohoney. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 29, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Mr. John A.
Blinn v. Nelson
BLINN, RECEIVER OF ALLEN, AN ABSENTEE, v. NELSON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 5. Argued April 10, 1911. — Decided October 23, 1911. A state statute of limitations allowing only' a little more than
Provident Institution for Savings v. Malone
PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS v. MALONE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OP THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS. No. 151. Argued April 26, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The State has power
Faber v. United States
FABER v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. No. 134. Submitted April 20, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. Quaere and purposely not decided whether the reduction in tariff rate
Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina
HOPKINS v. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP SOUTH . CAROLINA. No. 70. Submitted December 7,1910; ordered for reargument January 30, 1911; resubmitted March 15, 1911. Decided May 29,
Jover v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands
JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JOVER Y COSTAS. APPEALS FROM AND IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. Nos. 112, 113. Argued April 7, 1911. D
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Interstate Commerce Commission
BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. APPEAL- FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. No. 222. Argued April 17, 18, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The act of March 4, 1907, 34
American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister
AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC COMPANY v. WERCKMEISTER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 115. Argued April 10, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The forfeiture for infringement of copyright prescribed by § 4965, Rev. Stat.
Baglin v. Cusenier Co.
BAGLIN, SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE ORDER OF CARTHUSIAN MONKS, v. CUSENIER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM AND ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 99. Argued March 14, 15, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. While names which
Coyle v. Smith
COYLE v. SMITH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 941. Argued April 15, 16, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The power to locate its own seat of government, to change the same,
Lewis v. Luckett
LEWIS v. LUCKETT. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 142. Submitted April 25, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. Under § 130 of the Code of the District of- Columbia as amended by the act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 526,
Briscoe v. Rudolph
BRISCOE v. RUDOLPH ET AL., COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 141. Argued April 25, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. Sections 997 and 1012, Rev. Stat., and Rule 35 of this
Carpenter v. Winn
CARPENTER v. WINN. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 135. Argued April 20, 21, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. Section 724, Rev. Stat., has never been construed by this court, and the decisions of the inferi
Appleby v. City of Buffalo
APPLEBY v. CITY OF BUFFALO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. . • No. 162. Argued April 26, 27, 1911. Decided May 29, 1911. The right of this court to review the judgment of the highest court of a State is specifically li
Apsey v. Kimball
APSEY, RECEIVER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHELSEA, v. KIMBALL. SAME v. WHITTEMORE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. Nos. 132, 133. Argued April 20, 1
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.