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
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
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Parker
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. PARKER, ADMINISTRATOR OF PARKER. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. No. 330. Submitted November 1, 1916. Decided November 13, 1916. Plaintiff’s intestate was killed while mov
Portuguese-American Bank v. Welles
PORTUGUESE-AMERICAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO v. WELLES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 45. Argued October 27, 1916. Decided November 13, 1916. A provision in a contract between the City of San Francisco and
Cross v. United States
CROSS v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 78. Submitted October 23, 1916. Decided November 13, 1916. Under the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, c. 3592, fees may not rightfully be charged against the Uni
Free v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
No. 36. Martin H. Free, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Western Union Telegraph Company. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin. Argued October 25 and 26, 1916. Decided October 30, 1916.
Brown v. City of New York
No. 3. Mary Helen Brown, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of New York. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Argued October 20, 1916. Decided October 30, 1916.
Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co. v. Ward
INTER-ISLAND STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LIMITED, v. WARD. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 638. Motion to dismiss and for damages submitted October 9, 1916. Decided October 30, 1916. A writ of error will not l
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Cassady
No. 484. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Mrs. Emma A. Cassady, Administratrix, &c. In error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas.
Keyes v. Illinois
No. 316. Thomas Patrick Keyes, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People of the State of Illinois. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 16, 1916. Decided October 23, 1916.
Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.
DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM OCTOBER 9,1916, TO FEBRUARY 5, 1917, NOT INCLUDING ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTI-ORARI. No. 67. The Hart Steel Company et al., Petitioners, v. The Railroad Supply Company; The Railroad Supply Company, Pet
Frank v. Union Pacific Railroad
No. 727. Charles Frank et al., Appellants, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. June 12, 1916. Mr. Samuel Untermyer, Mr. Louis Marshall, Mr. Myron L. Learned
Hawgood & Avery Transit Co. v. Meaford Transportation Co.
No. 1051. No. 1052. The Hawgood & Avery Transit Company, Petitioner, v. The Meaford Transportation Company; and The Hawgood & Avery Transit Company, Petitioner, v. Ellen Williams, Administratrix, etc. June 12, 1916. Mr. Harvey D. Goulder fo
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. United States
No. 1040. Grand Trunk Railway Company, Petitioner, v. The United States. June 12, 1916. Mr. G. W. Kretz-inger, Jr., for the petitioner. No brief filed for respondent.
Maldonado & Co. v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.
No. 1027. Maldonado & Company, Petitioner, v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Company. June 12, 1916. Mr. Daniel P. Hays for the petitioner. Mr. Norman B. Beecher and Mr. Roscoe H. Hupper for the respondent.
First National Bank of Roswell v. Hoggson Bros.
No. 1019. The First National Bank of Roswell, Petitioner, v. Hoggson Brothers. June 12, 1916. Mr. William C. Reid for the petitioner. Mr. Selden Bacon for the respondent.
Lindsay v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
No. 764. Cynthia Lindsay, Petitioner, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. June 12, 1916. Mr. E. T. Thompson for the petitioner. Mr. F. B. Daniels and Mr. William Burry for the respondent.
Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca de Navigazione
No. 1046. Watts, Watts & Company, Petitioner, v. Unione Austriaca de Navigazione, etc. June 12, 1916. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin, Mr. John M. Woolsey and Mr. Mark W. Maclay, Jr., for the petitioner. Mr. Charles S. Haight for the respondent. •
Ex parte Sears
No. —. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of John H. Sears, as Trustee, Petitioner. Submitted June 5, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. Mr. Carroll G. Walter for the petitioner.
Holmes v. Conway
HOLMES v. CONWAY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP KANSAS. No. 335. Argued May 1, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not control mere forms of procedure in state courts or regulate
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-Green
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. HILTON-GREEN, EXECUTORS OF WIGGINS. CEETIOKAKI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 126. Argued December 9, 1915. Decided June 12, 1916. Material representations in an appli
Abbott v. Brown
ABBOTT v. BROWN, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Appeal prom the district court op the united states POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP FLORIDA. No. 611. Argued April 13, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. A rule of the District
United States v. Quiver
UNITED STATES v. QUIVER. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OP SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 682. Submitted April 28, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. The policy reflected by the legislation of Congress and its administration
United States v. Nice
UNITED STATES v. NICE. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 681. Argued April 24, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. The General Allotment Act of 1887 discloses that the tribal relation of the Ind
Dayton v. Stanard
DAYTON, TRUSTEE, ETC. v. STANARD, TREASURER OF PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 404. Submitted January 7, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. Under § 64a of thé Bankruptcy Act the hold
Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma
SOUTHERN SURETY COMPANY v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 124. Submitted December 9, 1915. Decided June 12, 1916. By reason of the conditions arising out of the presence of the Five Civilized Tri
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.