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
United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 504. Argued February 28, 1911. Decided March 13, 1911. In determining whether an office is one continuou
Neureuther v. Mineral Point Zinc Co.
No. 922. Charles F. Neureuther, Petitioner, v. Mineral Point Zinc Company. March 6, 1911. Mr. Thomas F. Sheridan for the petitioner. Mr. Edward Rector for the respondent.
Becker v. Exchange Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania
No. 878. Frances A. Becker, Petitioner, v. Exchange Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania. March 6, 1911. Mr. Edmund Bayly Seymour, Jr., for the petitioner. No appearance for the respondent.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Richardson
OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM FEBRUARY 21 TO MAY 29, 1911. No. 532. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. W. Richardson. Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of the
Virginia v. West Virginia
VIRGINIA v. WEST VIRGINIA. IN EQUITY. No. 3, Original. Argued January 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 1911. Decided March 6, 1911. A suit brought.by one State against another, formed by its consent, from its territory, to determine what proportion the
Waterbury v. Phenix National Bank
No. 449. John M. Waterbury and Chauncey Marshall, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Phenix National Bank. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. March 3, 1911. Mr. Charles L. Atterbury for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. George Coffing War
United States v. Franklin
CASES DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT FROM FEBRUARY 21 TO MAY 29, 1911. ' No. 352. The United States, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas Franklin. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New Yo
Preston v. Sturgis Milling Co.
No. 893. A. J. Preston, Petitioner, v. Sturgis Milling Company; A. J. Preston, Petitioner, v. The Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad Company; A. J. Preston, Petitioner, v. T. W. Calloway et al. No. 894. and No. 895. February 27, 1911
Hart v. United States
Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari from February 21 to May 29,1911. No. 879. John Hart, Petitioner, v. The United States. February 27, 1911. Mr. Thomas W. Fitzsimons for the petitioner. The Attorney General, The Solicitor Genera
Venner v. Denver Union Water Co.
No. 216. Clarence H. Venner et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Denver Union Water Company et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 30, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. Mr.
Noble State Bank v. Haskell
NOBLE STATE BANK v. HASKELL. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING. No. 71. Submitted January 27, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing in Noble State Bank v. Haskell, ante, p. 104, denie
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY v. McGUIRE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 62. Argued December 5, 6, 1910. Decided February 20, 1911. Neither the excellence nor the defects of a legislative scheme may b
Roughton v. Knight
ROUGHTON v. KNIGHT. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 711. Submitted January 6, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. As the Forest Reserve provision of the Sundry Civil Act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 36, did not
Merrimack River Savings Bank v. City of Clay Center
MERRIMACK RIVER SAVINGS BANK v. CITY OF CLAY CENTER. IN RE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT. No. 604. Argued January 26, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. The force and effect of a decree dismissing a bill and discharging an injunction is neither su
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL COMPANY v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND YOUNG. YOUNG v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. APPEALS FROM'THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP TEXAS. Nos. 459, 460. Argued Dece
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. United States
CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS AND LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 74. Submitted December 16, 1910. Decided February 20, 1911. Louisville & Na
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. MOTTLEY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. • No. 246. Submitted January 9, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. The intent of Congress is to be gathered from the words of the ac
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Arkansas
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARKANSAS. No. 50. -Argued November 11, 1910. Decided February 20, 1911. A State is under an obligation to establish necessary
Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 527. Argued December 13, 1910. Decided February 20, 1911. An order of the Interstate
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Wass
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. WASS. ERROR to the supreme court op the state op MINNESOTA. No. 181. Argued April 27, 28, 1910 Restored to docket for reargument December 19, 1910. Reargued January 19, 20, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911
Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser
CAMPBELL v. WEYERHAEUSER. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 12. Argued April 27, 28, 1910. Restored to docket for reargument December 19, 1910. Reargued January 19, 20, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. Dec
Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt
WEYERHAEUSER v. HOYT. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT. OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 24. Argued April 27, 28, 1910. Restored to docket for reaigument December 19, 1910. Reargued January 19, 20, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. It was
Ex parte Harding
EX PARTE HARDING, PETITIONER. No. —. Original. Submitted December 12, 1910. Decided February 20, 1911. The general rule that a court, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, is competent to decide questions arising as t
Buck's Stove & Range Co. v. American Federation of Labor
BUCK’S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BUCK’S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 190, 394. Argument commenced January 27, 1911. T
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.