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
Taylor v. Parker
TAYLOR v. PARKER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 58. Submitted November 5, 1914. Decided November 16, 1914. In view of the evils sought to be prevented, and in aid of the expressed policy of the Indians and the Uni
Jenkins v. Maxwell Land Grant Co.
No. 57. John Jenkins, Appellant, v. Maxwell Land Grant Company. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Argued for the appellant and submitted for the appellee November 5, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. Mr. F. T. Chee
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Idaho
No. 36. Twin Falls Canal Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Idaho et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. Argued October 30 and November 2, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. Mt. Arthur M. Bowen for the plaintiff
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. United States
MISSOURI, KANSAS AND TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 25. Argued October 28, 29, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. Whether the concession of lands in Indian Territory under § 9 of the Land Grant Act
Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co.
DEJONGE & COMPANY v. BREUKER & KESSLER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 18. Argued October 27, 28, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. 'Under Rev. Stat., §§ 4952,4970, as they were before the act of M
Overton v. Oklahoma
OVERTON v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 40. Submitted October 19, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. The court having instructed the jury that if the shipment of liquor within the State was to com
North Carolina v. Tennessee
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STATE OF TENNESSEE. IN EQUITY. No. 4, Original. Argued October 15, 16, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. Slick Rock Basin and Tellico Basin sections of the boundary line between North Carolina and Tennessee located
Miller v. First National Bank
No. 35. J. A. Miller, Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. The First National Bank of Albuquerque. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Submitted October 27, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. Mr. O. N. Marrón and Mr. Francis
Washington Dredging & Improvement Co. v. Washington
No. 16. Washington Dredging & Improvement Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Washington, E. V. Bussell et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Argued October 26 and 27, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. Mr.
Britton v. Wheeler
No. 343. Eliza M. Britton, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Augustin B. Wheeler. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 19, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. Mr. Charles Eduque for t
United States v. Holland-American Line
No. 409. The United States, Plaintiff in Error, v. Holland-American Line. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued October 21, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. The■ Attorney General and Mr. Assist
United States v. Portale
UNITED STATES v. PORTALE. ERROR TÓ THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. No. 382. Argued October 22, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. The provision of § 6 of the White Slave Act of June 25, 1910, requiring fil
Pullman Co. v. Knott
PULLMAN COMPANY v. KNOTT, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SAME v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Nos. 383, 384. Argued October 21, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. The co
Lane v. Watts
LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, v. WATTS. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 889. Petition for rehearing distributed to Justices October 12, 1914. Decided November 2, 1914. Opinion in Lane v. Watts, 234 U. S.
Mohawk Overall Co. v. Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Co.
No. 520. Mohawk Overall Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 20, 1914. Decided October 26, 1914. Mr.
Hotchkiss v. Ernst
No. 629. Henry D. Hotchkiss, as Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Irving L. Ernst et al., as Trustees, etc. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted October 13, 1914. Decided Octo
Ex parte Flagg
No. -. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Jared Flagg, Petitioner. Submitted October 19, 1914. Decided October 26, 1914. Mr. Robert C. Beatty and Mr. Wade H. Ellis for the petitioner. The' Attorney General, The Solicitor General, and Mr.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Goodrich
No. 1031. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Appellant, v. L. E. Goodrich. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 25, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. Mr.
Roller v. Murray
ROLLER v. MURRAY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP WEST VIRGINIA. No. 966. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 25, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. A mere error of law not involving a Federal question and committed in
Southern Railway Co. v. Crockett
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CROCKETT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP TENNESSEE. No. 826. Submitted April 16, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the state court to review a judgment in an action und
Hull v. Burr
HULL v. BURR. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 767. Argued March 3, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. A suit does not arise under the laws of the United States unless it really and substantially involves a disp
Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad
BURKE v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. LAMPRECHT v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.FOR t THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 279, 280. Argued January 13, 14, 1913. Decided June 22, 1914. The act of
Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District
CHAPMAN & DEWEY LUMBER CO. v. ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT. PETITION POE EEHEAEING. No. 82. Petition for rehearing by defendant in error received and distributed to the Justices on March 6, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. In presenting petitions
Selig v. Hamilton
SELIG v. HAMILTON, RECEIVER OF EVANS, JOHNSON, SLOANE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 361. Argued May 6, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. The legislation of Minnesota with res
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.