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
Baugham v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad
BAUGHAM, ADMINISTRATOR OF BAUGHAM, v. NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA & NORFOLK RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE'SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS OF THE STATE OP VIRGINIA. No. 327. Argued April 27, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Whether the injured employee knew
Jacobs v. Southern Railway Co.
JACOBS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS OF THE STATE OP VIRGINIA. No. 326. Argued April 27, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Under § 4 of the Employers’ Liability Act assumption of risk as a defense is abolished
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Brown
ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY v. BROWN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA. No. 399. Argued April 19, 20, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Minneapolis & St. Louis B. R. v. Bombolis, ante, p. 211, followed to effect
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. BOMBOLIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF NANOS. EKKOB TO THE SUPBEME COUET OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 478. Argued April 19, 20, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. The Seventh Amendment exacts a trial by jury accor
Lane v. United States ex rel. Mickadiet
LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MICKADIET AND TIEBAULT. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 449. Argued April 10, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. The general rule that courts have no power to
British Steamship Co. v. Clarke
No. 983. British Steamship Company (Ltd.), etc., Petitioner, v. Mary A. Clarke. May 8, 1916. Mr. J. Parker Kirlin, Mr. Charles R. Hickox.and Mr. Mark W. Maclay, Jr., for the petitioner. Mr. William A. Blount, Mr. A. C. Blount and Mr. F. B.
Bronx National Bank v. Rosenthal
No. 970. The Bronx National Bank, Petitioner, v. Marcus Rosenthal, Trustee, etc. May 8, 1916. Mr. Charles D. Folsom and Mr. John Hall Jones for the petitioner. Mr. Eugene L. Bondy for the respondent.
Bowen v. Dicks Press Guard Manufacturing Co.
No. 856. George W. Bowen, etc., Petitioner, v. Dicks Press Guard Manufacturing Company et al. May 8, 1916. Mr. Charles F. Fawsett for the petitioner. Respondents for themselves.
Stowe v. Harvey
STOWE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF HARVEY, v. HARVEY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 329. Argued April 27, 28, 1916. Decided May 8, 1916. In this case the substantial controversy was whether a transfer made
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.
GEORGIA, FLORIDA & ALABAMA RAILWAY COMPANY v. BLISH MILLING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 292. Argued March 15, 1916. Decided May 8, 1916. The bill of lading of an interstate shipment issued by the init
Maryland Dredging & Contracting Co. v. United States
MARYLAND DREDGING AND CONTRACTING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 310. Argued April 25, 1916. Decided May 8, 1916. A government contract for dredging a channel contained a provision that time was an essential
Down v. United Mine Workers
No. 771. A. S. Down, Receiver, etc., et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. United Mine Workers of America et al. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. May 2, 1916. Mr. James B. McDonough for the
Wilson Cypress Co. v. del Pozo y Marcos
No. 135, October term, 1914. Wilson Cypress Company, Appellant, v. Enrique del Pozo y Marcos et al. Submitted April 24, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. Mr. William W. Dewhurst, Mr. Joseph H. Jones, and Mr. John C. Jones for the petitioners. Mr.
Lincoln v. Power
No. 793. Ignatius Timothy Tribich Lincoln, Appellant, v. James M. Power, Marshal, etc. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Argued April 24, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916.
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Jones
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 492. Argued April 3, 4, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. In the trial of an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Harrington
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY v. HARRINGTON. ERROR TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 853. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted April 17, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. Unless the injured employee
The Raithmoor
THE RAITHMOOR. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ' FOR THE. EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 24. Argued January 26, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. In determining whether the admiralty has jurisdiction over an incom-pleted
Johnson v. Root Manufacturing Co.
JOHNSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF WARREN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. ROOT MANUFACTURING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 308. Argued April 18, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. An agreement was made by way o
De la Rama v. De la Rama
DE LA RAMA v. DE LA RAMA. ERROR TO AND APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.. No. 216. Submitted April 18, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. The rule that local practice, sanctioned by the local courts, should not be disturbed,
White v. United States
WHITE, RECEIVER OF COWARDIN, BRADLEY, CLAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 309. Argued April 19, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. As the plans annexed to the contract for construction of a filtration plant and reservo
United States v. Archer
UNITED STATES v. ARCHER. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. . No. 112. Argued December 7, 1915. Decided May 1, 1916. As questions of fact confront the court before a decision can be reached on the proposition of law herein involved, and the f
Lamar v. United States
LAMAR v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 895. Argued April 4, 1916. Decided May 1, 1916. The Circuit Court of Appeals has no power to compel a party, who has prosecuted both a direct app
Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission
No. 39. John F. Cubbins, Appellant, v. Mississippi River Commission, et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. April 24, 1916. Mr. Barnette E. Moses for the appellant. Mr. H. F. Roleso
Mason & Hanger Co. v. Sharon
No. 948. Mason & Hanger Company, Petitioner, v. Michael Sharon. April 24, 1916. Mr. Herman S. Heriwig for the petitioner. Mr. Sydney A. .Syme for the respondent.
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.