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
1916 Cases
296 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
Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Puckett
No. 535. The Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. H. Puckett. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Motion to dismiss submitted December 11, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916.
Williams v. Cobb
WILLIAMS, AS RECEIVER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINERAL POINT, WISCONSIN, v. COBB. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 125. Submitted November 17, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. Defendant and another,
Erie Railroad v. Welsh
ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY v. WELSH. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OHIO. ■ No. 29. Argued October 25, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. That a case may be within the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (c. 149, 35 Stab 65), it is essent
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Stineman Coal Mining Co.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. STINEMAN COAL MINING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 11. Argued May 14,1915; restored to docket for reargument June 14, 1915; reargued October 25, 1915. Decided December
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Wilson
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. WILSON. ERROR TO THE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF ILLINQIS. No. 375. Argued December 5, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. Under the Employers’ Liability Act, c. 149, §§ 3, 4, 35 Stat. 65, the
Illinois Central Railroad v. Peery
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. PEERY. error to the supreme court oe the state of MINNESOTA. No. 77. Argued November 7, 8, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. Plaintiff was a conductor in charge of a train-service south and north between
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Ohio Valley Tie Co.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. OHIO VALLEY TIE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP KENTUCKY. No. 66. Argued November 3, 6, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. Under §§ 8, 9- and 16 of the Act to Regulate Commerce
Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Anderson
CHICAGO, TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. ANDERSON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP INDIANA. No. 34. Argued October 25, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. When a state statute is unobjectionable as applied in the case
Ex parte Indiana Transportation Co.
EX PARTE INDIANA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, PETITIONER. PETITION POE WEIT OP PEOHIBITION. No. 25, Original. Motion for permission to intervene and to make return to rule to show cause. Submitted December 4, 1916. Decided December 18, 1916. In
Beecroft v. Great Northern Railway Co.
No. 699. John T. Beecroft, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Great Northern Railway Company. In error to the District Court of Lyon County, State of Minnesota. Argued December 6, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916.
New York Electric Lines Co. v. Gaynor
No. —. Original. The New York Electric Lines Company, Petitioner, v. William J. Gaynor et al., Board of Estimate and Apportionment of the City of New York et al. On application for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of New Yo
Long Sault Development Co. v. Call
LONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. CALL (AS SUCCESSOR OF KENNEDY), AS TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE NEW YORK. No. 49. Argued April 14, 17, 1916; restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916
Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, ET AL. v. HYDE. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 46. Argued October 27, 30, 31, 1916; additional argument November 1, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. Patent No. 835120, iss
Vandalia Railroad v. Public Service Commission
VANDALIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, AS THE SUCCESSOR OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP INDIANA. No. 81. Submitted November 6, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. Pr
Detroit United Railway v. Michigan
DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY v. CITY OF DETROIT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. Nos. 1, 4. Argued October 20, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. Plaintiff in error, in
United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad
UNITED STATES AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. UNITED STATES, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEALS PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
Goshen Manufacturing Co. v. Hubert A. Myers Manufacturing Co.
GOSHEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. HUBERT A. MYERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 60. Argued November 1, 2, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. When patent rights have been inf
Lovato v. New Mexico
LOVATO v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. No. 123. Submitted November 16, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. In a criminal case tried in a District Court of a Territory and coming here by way of the
Cissna v. Tennessee
CISSNA v. STATE OF TENNESSEE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP TENNESSEE. No. 89. Argued November 10, 1916. Reargument ordered December 11, 1916. The jurisdiction of this court being here challenged; and it appearing that the fact
Town of Essex v. New England Telegraph Co.
TOWN OF ESSEX v. NEW ENGLAND TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 56. Argued November 5, 1915. Decided December 6, 1916. The contention that an act of
Dixon v. Goethals
No. 127. Gideon Dixon et al., Appellants, v. George W. Goethals et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 20,1916. Decided December 4, 1916.
Hanson v. Great Northern Railway Co.
No. 90. Martin Hanson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Great Northern Railway Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Argued for the plaintiff in error and submitted for the defendant in error November 13, 1916. Decided Dec
United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
UNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 44. Argued October 27, 1916. Decided December 4, 1916. A railroad company which, being required by order of the Inters
United States v. Merchants & Manufacturers Traffic Ass'n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL. v. MERCHANTS & MANUFACTURERS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION OF SACRAMENTO ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE
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.