Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 313,007+ 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
1912 Cases
280 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 ex rel. Ness v. Fisher
UNITED STATES EX REL. NESS v. FISHER, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 66. Argued November 15, 1911. Decided March 11, 1912. Congress has constituted the Land Department, under the su
Tang Tun v. Edsell
TANG TUN v. EDSELL, CHINESE INSPECTOR. CERTIORARI TO . THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 45. Argued November 7, 1911. Decided March 11, 1912. Under the acts of August 18, 1894, c. 301, 28 Stat. 372, 390, and of Februar
Wingert v. First National Bank
WINGERT v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HAGERSTOWN. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 176. Argued February 29, 1912. Decided March 11, 1912. After filing of a.bill for injunction, defendants proceed at their, pe
Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids
CEDAR RAPIDS GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 163. Argued February 29, 1912. Decided March 11, 1912. Where the general power reserved to regulate rates-is only limited by the Fo
Clason v. Matko
CLASON v. MATKO. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP ARIZONA. No. 178. Submitted February 26, 1912. Decided March 11, 1912. Where the statute provides for an agreed statement on which the ease can be submitted, a stipulation b
Graham v. Gill
GRAHAM v. GILL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 173. Submitted February 29, 1912. Decided March 11, 1912. Overruling objections to admission of evidence other than field notes of surveys is in effect passing on effec
In re Merchants' Stock & Grain Co.
IN RE MERCHANTS’ STOCK AND GRAIN COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 10, Original. Submitted December 11, 1911. Decided March 4, 1912. Where the Circuit Court enters an order requiring a party violating an injunc
Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
PHILADELPHIA COMPANY v. STIMSON, SECRETARY OF WAR. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 70. Argued November 16, 1911. Decided March 4, 1912. Exemption of the United States from suit does not protect its officers
United States v. Miller
UNITED STATES v. MILLER. SAME v. SAME. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. Nos. 607, 608. Argued January 9, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. Posting of rates as required by § 6 of the Inters
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. C. H. ALBERS COMMISSION CO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 18. Argued October 26, 1911. Decided February 26, 1912. The insistence in the state court by an interstate carrier th
United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad
UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 128, 129. Argued January 26, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. An i
Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 121. Argued January 26, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company is not entitled under the
Ontario Land Co. v. Wilfong
ONTARIO LAND COMPANY v. WILFONG. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 160. Argued January 24, 1912. Decided February 26, 1912. Where the bill attacks' the constitutionality of the state law as applied ■ by the
United States v. Ellicott
UNITED STATES v. ELLICOTT. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 85. Argued December 7, 8, 1911. Decided February 26, 1912. The general rule governing appeals is applicable to appeals from the Court of Claims. A judgment is not generally tre
Zimmerman v. Harding
ZIMMERMAN v. HARDING. HARDING v. ZIMMERMAN. APPEALS FROM'THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. Nos. 771, 894. Submitted January 10, 1913. Decided February 24, 1912. A partnership formed to run a-hotel for which a lease is
Chase v. Phillips
No. 554. Horace Chase, Individually and as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Leonard H. Phillips and Samuel C. Lawrence, Trustees. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. Motion to dismiss or affirm s
Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage District
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY v. KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 844. Argued January 16, 1912. Decided February 19, 1912. A direction
United States v. Nord Deutscher Lloyd
UNITED STATES v. NORD DEUTSCHER LLOYD. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 611. Argued January 12, 1912. Decided February 19, 1912. The object of § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1907, pr
Miller v. King
MILLER v. KING, SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FAYETTE, IDAHO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OREGON. No. 153. Argued January 22, 23, 1912. Decided February 19, 1912. While a national bank cannot act as trustee and h
Latimer v. United States
LATIMER v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR PORTO RICO. No. 151. Submitted January 15, 1912. Decided February 19, 1912. Congress, in framing a tariff law, will be presumed to use words of a former tarif
McCarthy v. First National Bank
McCARTHY v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA. error to the supreme court op the state op south DAKOTA. No. 122. Argued December 19, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. The two-year limitation in Rev. Stat., § 5198, within which
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Wallace
GALVESTON, HARRISBURG AND SAN ANTONIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. WALLACE. SAME v. CROW. ERROR TO T&E COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. Nos. 108, 109. Submitted December 15, 1911. Decided February
New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co.
NEW MARSHALL ENGINE COMPANY v. MARSHALL ENGINE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 107. Submitted December 15, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases
Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon
GAAR, SCOTT & COMPANY v. SHANNON. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 88. Argued December 11, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. Where the judgment of the state court rests on
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.