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
American Railroad Co. of Porto Rico v. Didricksen
AMERICAN RAILROAD COMPANY OF PORTO RICO v. DIDRICKSEN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 72. Submitted December 6, 1912. Decided January 27, 1913. iVhere the plaintiffs in an action under the Employers’ Li
Heike v. United States
HEIKE v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 520. Argued January 9, 1913. Decided January 27, 1913. There is a clear distinction between an amnesty for crime committed and the constitutional
Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Sabine Tram Co.
TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY v. SABINE TRAM COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. • ’ No. 93. Argued December 17, 18, 1912. Decided January 27, 1913. Shipments of
De Bary & Co. v. Louisiana
DE BARY & COMPANY v. STATE OF LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT? OP THE STATE OP LOUISIANA. No. 696. Motion to affirm submitted January 10, 1913. Decided January 27, 1913. Under the Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, a State ma
Guardian Assurance Company v. Quintana
GUARDIAN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON v. QUINTANA. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 280. Argued January 6, 7, 1913. Decided January 27, 1913. Ordinarily the granting or refusing of a continuance is within
Marks v. Davis
No. 773. R. A. Marks et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. S. A. Davis et al. January 23, 1913. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. M. E. Olmsted for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted and Mr. D. R. Hite for the plaintiffs in error
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE COURT. No. 600. Argued October 17, 18, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. The Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by the Hepbu
Davis v. Las Ovas Co.
DAVIS v. LAS OVAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 87. Argued December 16, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. Where the true consideration of a syndicate purchase is concealed and the pro
Grant v. United States
GRANT AND BURLINGAME v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM AND IN ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 831. Argued January 6, 1913. Decided January 20, 1913. A judgment for criminal contempt is
Michigan Central Railroad v. Vreeland
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. VREELAND. ERROR TO .THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE.NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 242. Argued December 4, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. If tbe constitutional questions on which the writ
Gray v. Taylor
GRAY v. TAYLOR ET AL., AND LINCOLN COUNTY, TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, BY CLANCY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE RELATION OF ARAGON v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LINCOLN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. APPEALS PROM THE SUPREME COU
Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. City of Knoxville
CAMERON SEPTIC TANK COMPANY v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE, IOWA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. • No. 82. Argued December 11, 12, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. Although under §4S84, Rev. Stat.
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.
VIRTUE v. CREAMERY PACKAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND OWATONNA COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 80. Argued December 9, 10, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. To sustain, an action under § 7 of the Sherm
Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford Co. v. Gaines
WYNKOOP, HALLENBECK, CRAWFORD COMPANY v. GAINES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. . No. 689. Motion to dismiss submitted January 6, 1913. Decided January 20, 1913. Where the question whether the. claim agains
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Greenwood Grocery Co.
YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. GREENWOOD GROCERY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 54. Argued November 14, 1912. Decided January 20, 1913. Since Congress has acted, by passing the Hepburn A
Montgomery v. Read
No. 278. Robert H. Montgomery, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Maurice G. Samuels, Appellant, v. Charles A. Read, Trustee, etc. January 15, 1913. Dismissed with costs, on motion of Mr. E. ('. Brandenburg, in behalf of counsel for the appellant. Mr
St. Louis Fair Ass'n v. Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Co.
No. 210. St. Louis Fair Association, Plaintiff in Error, v. Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. January 13, 1913. Mr. Henry W. Bond and Mr. Thomas Bond for the plaintiff in error. No.
Hartford Rubber Works Co. v. Metallic Rubber Tire Co.
No. 906. The Hartford Rubber Works Company, Petitioner, v. Metallic Rubber Tire Company. January 13, 1913. Mr. Livingston Gifford for the petitioner. Mr. Norman Johnson for the respondent.
El Paso & Southwestern Railroad v. Eichel
EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. EICHEL & WEIKEL. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 252. Argued December 3, 1912. Decided January 13, 1913. This- court cannot r
Schmidinger v. City of Chicago
SCHMIDINGER v. CITY OF CHICAGO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 115. Argued December 20, 1912. Decided January 13, 1913. The right of the legislature, or the municipality under legislative authority, to regulate one
Hall v. United States
No. 117. John H. Hall, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. January 6, 1913. Mr. John H. Hall for the plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for the defen
Sypher v. Bouvier-Iaeger Coal Land Co.
No. 883. Howard H. Sypher et al., Petitioners, v. Bouvier-Iaeger Coal Land Company. January 6, 1913. Mr. John H. Holt for the petitioners. Mr. George E. Price for the respondent.
Ex parte King
No. —. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Jewell King, Petitioner. Submitted December 23, 1912. Decided January 6, 1913. Mr. Burton Smith for the petitioner.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Wulf
MISSOURI, KANSAS AND TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. WULF. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 517. Argued December 3, 1912. Decided January 6, 1913. Where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court does not depend entirely
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.