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
1914 Cases
315 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. Pelican
UNITED STATES v. PELICAN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 787. Argued January 13, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The'Colville Reservation in the State of Washington was set apar
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MINNESOTA. No. 150. Argued December 19, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Railroad corporations may be required, at their own ex
Woodward Co. v. Hurd
WOODWARD COMPANY v. HURD. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 142. Argued December 17, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Where the manufacturer of one element of a combination is immune under a decree of
Seim v. Hurd
SEIM v. HURD. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 141. Argued December 17, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Where the separate elements of the combination are all old, and it is ' only the article resul
Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
RUBBER TIRE WHEEL COMPANY v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 37. Argued May 7, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. In Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 2
United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEXINGTON MILL & ELEVATOR COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 548. Argued January 5, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The primary purpose of Congress in enacting the Fo
Weeks v. United States
WEEKS v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE" WESTERN DISTRICT OP MISSOURI. No. 461. Argued December 2, 3, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Under the Fourth Amendment Federal courts and officers are under
Mitchell Store Building Co. v. Carroll
MITCHELL STORE BUILDING COMPANY v. CARROLL, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF HERMAN KECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 212. Argued January 28, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. Section 24a
Montoya v. Gonzales
MONTOYA AND UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VIGIL v. GONZALES. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. No. 204. Argued January 27, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The disposition of this court is to leave decisions of the territoria
Fugurul v. Rivera
CALAF Y FUGURUL v. CALAF Y RIVERA. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT- OP PORTO RICO. No. 199. Argued January 26, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. While under the laws of Toro parol acts, although not amounting to a solemn recognition, may have
Taylor v. Taylor
TAYLOR, ADMINISTRATRIX, v. TAYLOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NEW YORK. No. 224. Argued January 30, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The Employers’ Liability Act of 1908, as amended in 1910, supersedes all state statutes upo
Jones v. St. Louis Land & Cattle Co.
JONES, RECEIVER, v. ST. LOUIS LAND AND CATTLE CO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OP NEW MEXICO. No. 203. Argued January 27, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The act of June 21,1860, expressly reserved the adverse rights of part
LeRoy Fibre Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway
LeROY FIBRE COMPANY v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 175. Submitted January 19, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. One’s lawful uses of his own property cannot
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 186. Argued January 23, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. Findings of fact concurred in by two lower cou
Baccus v. Louisiana
BACCUS v. STATE OF LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CLAIBORNE, STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 170. Argued January 19, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. This court will not disregard the construction placed upon a sta
Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
HARRISON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA, v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. No. 34. Submitted November 4, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914.
Rainey v. United States
RAINEY v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. RAINEY. RAINEY v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. RAINEY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE . UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEC
United States v. Bennett
UNITED STATES v. BENNETT (NO. 2). No. 630. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Argued January 6, 7, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. United States v. Goelet, ante, p. 293, followed to effect that the tax im
United States v. Bennett
UNITED STATES v. BENNETT. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 629. Argued January 6, 7, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. The rule of interpretation that where there are two possible constructions of a s
United States v. Goelet
UNITED STATES v. GOELET. CERTIFICATES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 631, 632. Argued January 6, 7, 1914. Decided February 24, 1914. Billings v. United States, ante, p. 261, followed to the effect that the ta
Pierce v. United States
PIERCE v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. PIERCE. (NO. 2). Nos. 65, 624. error to the circuit court of the united states FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Argued Janu
Pierce v. United States
PIERCE v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. PIERCE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR •THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 64 and 623. Argued January
United States v. Billings
UNITED STATES v. BILLINGS. BILLINGS v. UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Nos. 626 and 67. Argued Janu
Billings v. United States
BILLINGS v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. BILLINGS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW TORE. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 66 and 625. Argued Janua
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.