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
Hopkins v. Hebard
HOPKINS v. HEBARD. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 30. Argued October 16, 19, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. The function of a bill of review filed for newly discovered evidence is to relieve a merito
United States v. Lewis
UNITED STATES v. LEWIS. ERROR to the district court of the united states FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 380. Argued October 22, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. The plain object of the prohibition in the Meat Inspection Law of 1906 against
United States v. Wigger
UNITED STATES v. WIGGER, ALIAS MOOSE JOHN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, FOURTH DIVISION. No. 349. Argued October 23, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. The act of the legislature of Alaska of Ap
Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp
WESTERN LIFE INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS v. RUPP. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 50. Submitted November 5, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. A State may prescribe that a voluntary special appearance in one of i
Porto Rico v. Emmanuel
PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO v. EMMANUEL, BARON DU LAURENS d'OISELAY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO. No. 4. Argued October 23, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Under § 35 of the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, th
United States v. Salen
UNITED STATES v. SALEN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 506. Argued October 23, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. The suppression clause in the declaration required to be made by ag
United States v. Nixon
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, BIDDLE, AND WEST, RECEIVERS OF THE ST. LOUIS AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 427. Argued October 22, 1914. Decided Novemb
Henry v. Henkel
HENRY v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 216. Argued February 24, 25, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. No hard and fast rule has as yet been annou
Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad v. United States
MINIDOKA & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 19. Argued October 29, 30, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Under the policy of the Government to encourage the b
Skelton v. Dill
SKELTON v. DILL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 56. Submitted November 5, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Restrictions upon alienation of allotments to Creek Indians made under the act of March 1, 1901, c. 676; 31
Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope
SIOUX REMEDY COMPANY v. COPE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TURNER COUNTY, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 37. Submitted March 13, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. When the writ of error from this court is not allowed until.after the record has
New York Electric Lines Co. v. Empire City Subway Co.
NEW YORK ELECTRIC LINES COMPANY v. EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 63. Argued November 5, 6, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. If it sufficiently appears that plaintiff in error raised the
Louisiana Railway & Navigation Co. v. Behrman
LOUISIANA RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY v. BEHRMAN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 49. Argued November 4, 5, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. While the jurisdiction of this court u
McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
McCABE v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 15. Argued October 26, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Under the Enabling Act the State of Oklahoma was admitted to
United States v. Reynolds
UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS. UNITED STATES v. BROUGHTON. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. Nos. 478, 479. Argued October 23, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Congress passed §§ 1990 and 552
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Omaha
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OMAHA. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 47. Argued November 4, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. A railway company may be required by the State, or by a municipa
Magruder v. Drury
MAGRUDER v. DRURY AND MADDOX, TRUSTEES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 17. Argued October 27, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. On appeals from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia taken under t
Sage v. Hampe
SAGE v. HAMPE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 82. Argued November 12, 13, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Where plaintiff in error was-defendant in the state court in a suit upon a contract to convey Indian allottee
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
L. E. WATERMAN COMPANY v. MODERN PEN COMPANY. MODERN PEN COMPANY v. L. E. WATERMAN COMPANY. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 54, 72. Argued November 10, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. When the use of
Monagas v. Albertucci
MONAGAS v. ALBERTUCCI. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO. No. 44. Submitted October 29, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. On an appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, the power of this court is confined to determining whether
United States v. Bartlett
UNITED STATES v. BARTLETT. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 251. Argued October 22, 1914. Decided November 16, 1914. The act of May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 312, extending to April 26, 1931, the period
United States v. Mayer
UNITED STATES v. MAYER, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 462. Argued October 22, 23, 1914. Decided November 16,
Cleveland & Pittsburgh Railroad v. City of Cleveland
CLEVELAND AND PITTSBURGH RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. No. 95. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 13, 1914. Decided November 16, 1914. In order to bring a case to th
Willoughby v. City of Chicago
WILLOUGHBY v. CITY OF CHICAGO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 66. Motion to dismiss submitted November 6, 1914. Decided November 16, 1914. Where the constitutional question is obvious from the beginning and is not
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.