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
Strassheim v. Daily
STRASSHEIM, SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, v. DAILY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COllftT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 638. Argued April 3, 4, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. In a habeas corpus proceeding in extradition
In re Harris
MATTER OF HARRIS, BANKRUPT. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 165. 'Argued April 28, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. The right under the Fifth Amendment net to be compelled to be a witness against oneself
Jacobs v. Beecham
JACOBS v. BEECHAM. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 139. Argued April 21, 24,1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Corruptio optimi pessima. Sound general principles should not be turned to support a conclusion man
West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, v. KANSAS NATURAL GAS COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP OKLAHOMA. No. 916. Argued April 4, 5, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. When a State re
United States v. Hammers
UNITED STATES v. HAMMERS. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 314. Argued April 12, 13, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Under the Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877, c. 107, 19 Stat. 377,
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Trodick
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. TRODICK. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ■ No. 117. Argued April 11, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Land within place limits of the Northern Pacific Land Grant Act of July 2,1
Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States
HANNIBAL BRIDGE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 100. Argued April 17, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Section.18 of the act of March 3,1899, c. 425, 30 Stat.T1
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE -EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Argued March 14,15,16, 1910; restored to docket for reargument April 11, 1910; rea
Boggs v. United States
No. 268. Lawrence G. Boggs, Appellant, v. The United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. May 15, 1911. Mr. George A. King and Mr. 'William B. King for the appellant. The Attorney General for the appellee.
Thomas v. Thomas
No. 942. Jessie B. Thomas, Plaintiff in Error, v. John R. Thomas. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 1, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Mr. Frank Dale and Mr. A.G.C. Bierer for the pla
Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co.
SCHLEMMER, NOW CRAIG, v. BUFFALO, ROCHESTER AND PITTSBURG RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 374. Argued April 3, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Where on writ of error the case is reversed on the Fede
Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
DELK v. ST. LOUIS AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 88. Argued March 9, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. A car containing an interstate shipment,stopped for repairs before i
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. United States
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 329. Argued March 9, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. Under the Safety Appliance Acts of March 2, 1893, c. 196,
Wise v. Henkel
WISE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL IN NEW YORK. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 964. Argued April 24, 25, 1911. Decided May 15, 19
Wise v. Mills
WISE v. MILLS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 963. Argued April 24, 25, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. The fact that a question under the Constitution is involved in an order requirin
United States v. Rimer
UNITED STATES v. RIMER. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 158. Argued April 26, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. When certiorari is granted on the basis that the decision below involved principles of far-reaching eff
Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co. of West Virginia
EX PARTE METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY OF WEST VIRGINIA No. 19, Original. Argued April 24, 1911. Decided May 15, 1911. The provisions of § 17 of the act of June 18, 1910, c. 309, 36 Stat. 557, in regard to interlocutory injunctions to restrain
United States v. Grimaud
UNITED STATES v. GRIMAUD. SAME v. INDA. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Nos. 241, 242. Argued February 28, 1910; affirmed by divided court March 14, 1910; restored to docket for rear
Chin Ying Don v. Billings
No. 715. Chin Ying Don et al., Appellants, v. George B. Billings, United States Commissioner, etc. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. May 1, 1911. Mr. Warren Ozro Kyle for the appellants.
Ingraham v. Commercial Lead Co.
No. 999. William S. Ingraham, etc., Petitioner, v. Commercial Lead Company et al. May 1, 1911. Mr. William B. Thompson and Mr. Ford W. Thompson for the petitioner. No appearance for the respondents.
Snyder v. American Pneumatic Service Co.
No. 1007. William V. Snyder et al., Petitioners, v. The American Pneumatic Service Company et al. May 1, 1911. Mr. James H. Griffin and Mr. Hector T. Fenton for the petitioners. Mr. M. B. Philipp for the respondents.
Light v. United States
LIGHT v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP COLORADO. No. 360. Argued February 27, 28, 1911. Decided May 1, 1911. United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 506, followed to effect that Congress ma
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes
SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON COMPANY v. RHODES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 128. Argued April 19, 20, 1911, for plaintiff in error. The court declined to hear further argument. Decided May 1, 1911. Thé Fourteenth Amend
Sena v. American Turquoise Co.
SENA v. AMERICAN TURQUOISE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP NEW MEXICO. No. 73. Argued April 18, 1911. Decided May 1, 1911. In an action of ejectment in New Mexico, the trial court was of opin- . ' ion that the bounda
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.