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
1917 Cases
256 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
Illinois Central Railroad v. Greene
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. GREENE, AUDITOR, ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. GREENE, AUDITOR, ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Greene
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. GREENE, AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. GREENE, AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, ET AL., INDIV
Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Railroad
GREENE, AUDITOR, ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. v. LOUISVILLE & INTERURBAN RAILROAD COMPANY. SAME v. LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEALS PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STA
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad v. Lane
SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. APPEAR EROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP' COLUMBIA. No. 170. Argued April 18, 1917. Decided June 11, 1917. In view of the power reserved to add to, alter, amen
Hopkins v. Walker
HOPKINS ET AL. v. WALKER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA. No. 234. Submitted October 18, 1915. Decided June 11, 1917. A case arises under the laws of the United States where an appropri
Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal
PAINE LUMBER COMPANY, LIMITED, ET AL. v. NEAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE JOINT DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA AND AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARP
Ex parte Indiana Transportation Co.
EX PARTE INDIANA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, PETITIONER. ON PETITION FOB WBIT OF PEOHIBITION. No. 25, Original. Argued May 21, 1917. Decided June 11, 1917. The foundation of jurisdiction is physical power. Appearance in answer to a citation iss
Valdez v. United States
VALDEZ v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 361. Argued April 23, 24, 1917. Decided June 11, 1917. The testimony of an accomplice who turns State’s evidence in a murder case is not. to be discarded bec
First National Bank v. Fellows ex rel. Union Trust Co.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BAY CITY v. FELLOWS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ON THE RELATION OF UNION TRUST COMPANY ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MICHIGAN. No. 764. Argued March 22, 23, 1917. Decided June 11, 1
Ex parte Park Square Automobile Station
EX PARTE PARK SQUARE AUTOMOBILE STATION, PETITIONER. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 31, Original. Submitted May 21, 1917. Rule discharged June 11, 1917. Mandamus will not lie to control the District Court upon a jurisdictional question
Ex parte Goodrich
No. —. Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of Cornelia G. Goodrich et al., Petitioners. Submitted May 21, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. Mr. Hannis Taylor and Mr. William D. Gordon for petitioners.
Laser Grain Co. v. United States
No. 658. Laser Grain Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. United States of America. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Motion to require plaintiff in error to elect, etc., or to dismiss, sub
Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co.
WALL ET AL. v. PARROT SILVER & COPPER COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA. No. 271. Argued May 4, 7, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. The court agrees with the District Court in concludi
United States ex rel. Louisiana v. Jack
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. HON. GEORGE WHITFIELD JACK, JUDGE OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. CEETIOEAEI TO THE CIECUIT COUET OF APPEALS FOE THE FIFTH CIECUIT. No. 264. Argued M
Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMMISSION ET AL. v. MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 256. Submitted May 1, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. While the power of
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS ET AL. v. WARD ET AL., AND HOUSTON & TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 241. Submitted April 30,
Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co.
ILLINOIS SURETY COMPANY v. THE JOHN DAVIS COMPANY ET AL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. ' No. 235. Argued April 27, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. The purpose of the' Act of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, is t
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. McKnight
ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. McKNIGHT ET AL., RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 183. Argued May 2, 1917. Decided June 4, 19
Mason v. United States
MASON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, SECOND DIVISION. No. 604. Submitted April 11, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. The Fifth Amendment does not relieve a witness from answer
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Tonsellito
NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. TONSELLITO, AN INFANT, ETC. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. TONSELLITO. ERROR TO THE COURT OP ERRORS AND APPEALS OP THE STATE OP NEW JERSEY. Nos. 239, 240. Submitted Ap
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. United States
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY OF IDAHO v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 176. Argued April 18, 19, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. The power to establish forest reservátions, b
Western Oil Refining Co. v. Lipscomb
WESTERN OIL REFINING COMPANY v. LIPSCOMB, CLERK OF THE COUNTY COURT OF MAURY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, AS SUCCESSOR OF THOMAS. ERROR TO THE' SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. No. 168. Submitted March 23, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. It is th
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 267. Argued May 4, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. The Hours of Service Act of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat. 1415, is
Erie Railroad v. Stone
ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY v. STONE ET AL., PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF STONE & NOBLE. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, STATE OF OHIO. No. 254. Argued May 3, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. In a limited liability cont
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.