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
1913 Cases
359 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
Stuart v. Union Pacific Railroad
STUART v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 135. Argued January 22, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. It has already been decided by this court that the Kansas Pacific Ra
Harris v. United States
HARRIS, ALIAS SMITH, AND GREEN v. UNITED STATES. ERROI! AM) CERTIORARI,TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF.APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 602. Argued January 7, 8, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. Hoke v. Unitpd States, ante, p. 308, followed to ef
Bennett v. United States
BENNETT v. UNITED STATES. ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 603. Argued January 8, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. . Il'oke v. United Stales, ante, p. 30(8, followed to effect that the White Sl
Athanasaw v. United States
ATHANASAW AND SAMPSON v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. No. 588. Argued January 7, 8, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. Hoke v. United States, ante, p. 308, followed to e
Hoke & Economides v. United States
HOKE AND ECONOMIDES v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT .OF THE UNITED STATES ■ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; No. 381. Argued January 7, 8, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. The power given to Congress by the Constitution over
Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta
HUTCHINSON v. CITY OF VALDOSTA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. No. 146. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. Where the charter gives the-municipality power to enact
Winfree v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
WINFREE, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF PHIPPS, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 139. Submitted January 23, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. While there are exceptions, especially in
Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles
HOME TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 610. Submitted October 28, 1912. Decided February 24, 1913. One, whose rights prot
Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo
PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO v. ROSALY Y CASTILLO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO. No. 145. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. The government of Porto Rico cannot be sued without its consent. The government of Porto
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Edwards
ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EDWARDS. ERROR TO-TIIE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 123. Submitted January 20, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. Action by 'Congress on a subject within its domain under t
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson
NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF HUDSON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. No. 50. Argued November 13, 1912. Decided February 24, 1913. Congress, by passin
Ex parte Chain
No.-. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Dan Chain, Petitioner. Submitted January 28, 1913; Decided February 3, 1913. Mr. A, M. Belcher and Mr. H. W. Houston for the petitioner.
Johnson v. Hoy
JOHNSON v. HOY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 842. Argued January 7, 8, 1913. Decided February 3, 1913. The writ o
Scott v. Lattig
SCOTT v. LATTIG. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. No. 86. Argued December 13, 1912. Decided February 3, 1913. An error in omitting an island in a navigable stream does not divest the United States of the title or interpose
St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. Alexander
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS v. ALEXANDER. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW'YORK No. 738. Submitted December 2, 1912. Decided February 3, 1913. In order to hold a corporati
United States v. Winslow
UNITED STATES v. WINSLOW. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 620. Argued January 10, 1913. Decided February 3, 1913. On appeals under the Criminal'Appeals Act of 1907 this court has no ju
Brooklyn Mining & Milling Co. v. Miller
BROOKLYN MINING AND MILLING COMPANY v. MILLER. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 144. Argued January 23, 24, 1913. Decided February 3, 1913. Suit for specific performance dismissed by the courts below for failur
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Schwyhart
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. SCHWYHART. ERROR TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP MISSOURI. No. 132. Argued January 21, 22, 1913. Decided February 3, 1913. Whether there was a joint liability of defend
Gutierrez del Arroyo v. Graham
GUTIERREZ DEL ARROYO v. GRAHAM. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 129. Submitted January 21, 1913. Decided February 3, 1913. Held that the instrument involved in this case was an actual contract for pur
Robinson v. Lundrigan
ROBINSON v. LUNDRIGAN. APPEAL FROM' THE',' UNITED STATES CIRCUIT.. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH' CIRCUIT. No. 108. Argued December 19, 20, 1912. Decided February 3, 1913. Where an application for public lands is finally rejected on the g
United States v. Harvey Steel Co.
UNITED STATES v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY. MIDVALE STEEL COMPANY v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY. APPEALS FROM THE COUíÍT OF CLAIMS. Nos. 615, 616. Submitted January 6, 1913, Decided February 3, 1913. The construction given to a contract by this court
Clements v. Northrop
No. 926. J. B. Clements et al., Petitioners, v. George P. Northrop et al., Executors. January 27, 1913. Mr. Alexander Akerman for the petitioners. Mr. Arthur H. Codington for the respondents.
Mengel v. Mengel
No. 178. George Mengel, Plaintiff in Error, v. Blanche Mengel and Louis Eckhart, Sheriff. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. Mr. Benjamin I. Salinger for the plaintiff in error. Mr. I. S. Pepper for the defendants in error.
Ross v. Oregon
ROSS v. STATE OF OREGON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT. OF THE STATE OF OREGON. No. 75. Argued December 6, 1912. Decided January 27, 1913. The prohibition in § 10 of Article I of the- Constitution against ex pout facto laws is a restraint.upon
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.