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
Russo-Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle
RUSSO-CHINESE BANK v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 244. Argued April 13, 14, 1916. Decided June 5, 1916. In an action by a bank in Port Arthur to rec
United States v. Jin Fuey Moy
UNITED STATES v. JIN FUEY MOY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 525. Argued December 7, 1915. Decided June 5, 1916. A statute must be so construed, if fairly possible, as to avoi
Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States
MERRILL-RUCKGABER COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 281. Argued March 17, 1916. Decided June 5, 1916. In construing a contract the court must at first resort to its words, but not to one or a few of them, but to
United States v. Hemmer
UNITED STATES v. HEMMER. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 86. Submitted May 5, 1916. Decided June 5, 1916. Where there are no repealing words in a later act, a former act relating to the same or a similar
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Harold
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. HAROLD. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP KANSAS. No. 347. Argued May 2, 1916. Decided June 5, 1916. Although the original interstate bill of lading of a car shipment was surrendered f
Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission
CUBBINS v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION. APPEAL FROM TEE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 299. Argued April 24, 1916. Decided June 5, 1916. Queere, Whether a suit against the members of the M
Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad v. United States
SPOKANE & INLAND EMPIRE RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 136. Submitted December 15, 1915. Decided June 5, 1916. Exceptions from the general policy which the law embodies ar
United States v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
No. 306. The United States et al., Appellants, v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois.' May 22, 1916. The Attorney General for t
Alice State Bank v. Houston Pasture Co.
No. 973. Alice State Bank et al., Petitioners, v. Houston Pasture Company. May 22, 1916. Mr. Henry W. Taft and Mr. Walter P. Napier for the petitioners. Mr. William D. Gordon for the respondent.
First National Bank v. Kehnast
No. 333. The First National Bank of Defiance, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Kehnast et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Argued April 28 and May 1, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Mr. Robert Newbegin and Mr. Henry Newb
Dunham v. Kauffman
No. 189. Anna C. Dunham et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Clara V. Kauffman et al. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Argued May 4, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Mr. D. K. Watson for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles C. Pavey
Brazee v. Michigan
BRAZEE v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MICHIGAN. No. 402. Argued April 6, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. A State, exercising its police power, may require licenses for employment agencies and pres
Southern Railway Co. v. Gray
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GRAY, ADMINISTRATRIX OF GRAY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 355. Argued May 5, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Contradictory statements made by a witness prior to his examination in t
Donald v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.
DONALD, SECRETARY OF STATE OF WISCONSIN, v. PHILADELPHIA & READING COAL & IRON COMPANY. FREAR, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF WISCONSIN, v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY. APPEALS PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DIST
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. Rankin
CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. RANKIN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP . TENNESSEE. No. 59. Argued November 5, 1915. Decided May 22, 1916. Where the state court has treated the instrument involved as p
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. De Atley
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. DE ATLEY. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP KENTUCKY. No. 274. Argued March 10, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. The Employers’ Liability Act abrogated the common-law fellow servant rule by plac
Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
BANKERS TRUST COMPANY v. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP TEXAS. No. 889. Argued April 12, 13, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. In a suit brought by a corporation
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY v. RENN. ERROR TO The supreme court OP THE STATE OP'NORTH CAROLINA. No. 773. Argued April 4, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Whether the state court, in permitting an amendment to the complaint in an action under the E
United States v. Coca Cola Co.
UNITED STATES v. COCA COLA COMPANY OF ATLANTA. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 562. Argued February 29, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Under the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, the fact that a formula has been made
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Stewart
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. STEWART, ADMINISTRATRIX OF STEWART. STEWART, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF STEWART, v. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP KENTUCKY. Nos. 485, 904. Arg
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
AMERICAN WELL WORKS COMPANY v. LAYNE AND BOWLER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 376. Argued May 5, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. A suit for damages to business caused by a th
Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz
TERMINAL TAXICAB COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. KUTZ, NEWMAN, AND BROWNLOW, COMMISSIONERS AND CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 348. Argued
Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Schmidt
PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. SCHMIDT. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 323. Argued April 25, 26, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Where the writ of certiorari was granted to review the question of law, a
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Carnahan
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. CARNAHAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. No. 743. Argued April 19, 20, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. Bombolis, ante, p. 211, followed to ef
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.