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
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
City of Blackwell v. City of Newkirk
No. 214. City of Blackwell, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Newkirk et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Submitted January 29, 1914. Decided February 2, 1914. Mr. A. G. C. Bierer, Mr. Frank Dale and Mr. Joseph W. Ba
Arnott v. Southern Railway Co.
No. 196. J. E. Arnott et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Southern Railway Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. Argued January 26, 1914. Decided February 2, 1914. Mr. C. J. St. John for the plaintiffs in error. Mr.
North Carolina Railroad v. Zachary
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ZACHARY, ADMINISTRATOR OF BURGESS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 144. Argued December 17, 18, 1913. Decided February 2, 1914. In order to bring a case within the terms of t
Miedreich v. Lauenstein
MIEDREICH v. LAUENSTEIN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. No. 20. Argued October 31, 1913. Decided February 2, 1914. Although the record is meager of attempts to raise it, if .the state court holds that a Federal question
Thomas v. Matthiessen
THOMAS v. MATTHIESSEN. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS" FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 171. Argued January 19, 1914. Decided February 2, 1914. While a corporation cannot, without authority from the stockholders, make them answerable
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE COURT. No. 590. Argued December 1, 2, 1913. Decided January 26, 1914. Whatever transportation service or facility the law requires the carr
Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District
CHAPMAN & DEWEY LUMBER CO. v. ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT. ERROR TQ. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 82. Argued December 12, 1913. Decided January 26, 1914. Whether particular lands patented by the-United States to a State ha
Taney v. Penn National Bank of Reading
TANEY, TRUSTEE OF MILLER PURE RYE DISTILLING COMPANY, v. PENN NATIONAL BANK OF READING. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 115. Argued December 9, 10, 1913. Decided January 26, 1914. In determining the relat
Alabama v. Schmidt
STATE OF ALABAMA v. SCHMIDT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ALABAMA. No. 595. Argued January 12, 1914. Decided January 26, 1914. The act of March 2,1819, c. 47, § 6, 3 Stat. 489, under which Alabama became a State, vested'the le
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Polt
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. POLT. ERROR TO THE . SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 161. Argued January 16, 1914. Decided January 26, 1914. While the States have a large latitude in the policy they will pur
Burbank v. Ernst
BURBANK v. ERNST, TUTRIX OF BURBANK, A. MINOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP LOUISIANA. No. 151. Argued January 15, 16, 1914. Decided January 26, 1914. Where the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment depends upon dom
United States v. Young
UNITED STATES v. YOUNG. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. No. 710. Submitted January 8, 1914. Decided. January 26, 1914. Under § 5480, Rev. Stat., it was necessary to charge not- only tha
Lake v. Superior Court
No. 681. Fred W. Lake et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted December 22,
Norris v. Johnson
No. 149. F. O. Norris et al., Appellants, v. J. E. Johnson et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted January 12, 1914. Decided January 19, 1914. .Mr. Thomas M. Kennerly
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Cockrell
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO. v. COCKRELL, ADMINISTRATOR. . ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. • No. 100. Argued December 5, 1913. Decided January 19, 1914. As the right to remove a cause from a state to a Federal court
Patsone v. Pennsylvania
PATSONE v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA. No. 38. Argued November 4, 1913. Decided January 19, 1914. The act of May 8, 1909, of Pennsylvania, making it unlawful for unnaturalize
Bacon v. Rutland Railroad
BACON ET AL., PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, v. RUTLAND RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT. No. 760. Argued January 9, 1914. Decided January 19, 1914. Althou
Cain v. Commercial Publishing Co.
CAIN v. COMMERCIAL PUBLISHING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 797. Submitted January 6, 1914. Decided January 19, 1914. Revolutions in the practice and efficacy of the
Star Chronicle Publishing Co. v. United Press Associations
No. 776. Star Chronicle Publishing Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. United Press Associations. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm and for damages. Submitted January 5, 1
Barnes v. Alexander
BARNES v. ALEXANDER. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 109. Submitted December 1, 1913. Decided January 12, 1914. Where the remarks in the opinion are not necessary to the decision, which was placed mainly on ot
Van Syckel v. Arsuaga
VAN SYCKEL v. ARSUAGA. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 69. Argued November 13, 1913. Decided January 6, 1914. Where appellant with ground challenges the adequacy of the findings of the court below to
Ross v. Day
ROSS v. DAY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 122. Argued December 11, 1913. Decided January 5, 1914. Whether parties had actually improved Cherokee lands in such sense as to give them a preferential right of selecti
Bank of Arizona v. Thomas Haverty Co.
BANK OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS HAVERTY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 87. Submitted December 4, 1913. Decided January 5, 1914. In this case this court thinks there was sufficient evidence as to the authority
Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railway Co. v. Hall
GILA VALLEY, GLOBE & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HALL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 68. Submitted November 13, 1913. Decided January 5, 1914. On an appeal from the territorial court this court cannot consider
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.