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
1919 Cases
301 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
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bowles
No. 78. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company et al. v. George H. Bowles. Error to the District Court of the United States for the .'Southern District of Texas. Submitted November 12,1919. Decided November 17, 1919.
Rucker v. Tatlow
No. 59. Bert Rucker v. Marion A. Tatlow. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Submitted November 10, 1919. Decided November 17, 1919.
Thompson v. Day
No. 286. J. W. Thompson v. R. B. Day, Sheriff and Tax Collector, et al. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana; Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 10, 1919. Decided November 17, 1919.
Geary v. Geary
No. 182. William J. Geary v. Alice Geary. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska. Motion to dismiss submitted November 10, 1919. Decided November 17, 1919.
United States v. Southern Pacific Co.
UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OR APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.' No. 179. Argued March 5, 6, 1919. Decided November 17, 1919. Lands valuable for oil and known to be so at the time of their se
Abrams v. United States
ABRAMS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. No. 316. Argued October 21, 22, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. Evidence sufficient to sustain any one of several count
Groesbeck v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co.
GROESBECK ET AL. v. DULUTH, SOUTH SHORE & ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 254. Argued October 15, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. The laws of Michigan
Bank of Oxford v. Love
BANK OF OXFORD ET AL. v. LOVE ET AL., BANK EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. EBBOB TO THE SUPBEME COUBT OP THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI. No. 9. Submitted March 27, 1918; restored to docket for oral argument April 22, 1918; argued October 1
New York Central Railroad v. Bianc
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. BIANC. AMERICAN KNIFE COMPANY ET AL. v. SWEET-ING. CLARK KNITTING COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. VAUGHN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Nos
Mullen v. Pickens
MULLEN ET AL. v. PICKENS ET AL. MULLEN ET AL. v. GARDNER ET AL. ERROR TO the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Nos. 25, 26. Submitted October 13,1919. Decided November 10,1919. Under the Choctaw and Chickasaw Supplemental Agreement (A
Stilson v. United States
STILSON v. UNITED STATES. SUKYS v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Nos. 264, 265. Argued October 20, 21, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. The denial of a severance in
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Fink
PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. FINK. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, STATE OF OHIO. No. 2. Argued October 7, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. Under the Act to Regulate Commerce, it is unla
Pell v. McCabe
PELL ET AL. v. McCABE ET AL. APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE. SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 311,335. Argued October 16,1919. Decided November 10,1919. One who has not been subjected to the jurisdiction in an action
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Public Service Commission
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OP PENNSYLVANIA. No. 53. Argued October 24, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. A writ of error will
Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. v. United States
LEHIGH COAL & NAVIGATION COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 38. Argued October 14, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. Under a covenant in a long lease of its railroad properties,
United States ex rel. Alaska Smokeless Coal Co. v. Lane
UNITED STATES ON THE RELATION OF ALASKA SMOKELESS COAL COMPANY v. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 36. Argued October 14, 1919. Decided November 10, 1919. The Act of Apri
Cartas v. United States
CARTAS v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 122. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 13, 1919.— Decided November 10, 1919. To review a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing a petition for ’ want of jurisdict
Maxwell v. Bugbee
MAXWELL ET AL., EXECUTORS OF McDONALD, v. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF HILL, v. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. ERROR TO THE COURT OF ER
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Wright
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. WRIGHT, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. No. 30. Reargued October 13, 14, 1919. Decided October 27,1919. The provisions in the charters gr
Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough
No. 128. Ohio Valley Water Company v. Ben Avon Borough et al. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. Argued October 15, 1919. Restored to the docket for reargument, January 12, 1920.
Bowerman v. Hamner
BOWERMAN v. HAMNER, AS RECEIVER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SALMON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH. CIRCUIT. No. 289. Argued April 28, 29, 1919. Decided June 9, 1919. In.addition to the specific duties defined in t
Odell v. F. C. Farnsworth Co.
ODELL v. F. C. FARNSWORTH COMPANY ET AL. APPEAR PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. No. 186. Submitted March 24, 1919. Decided June 9, 1919. A suit by a patentee to compel an accounting for ro
Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. BOGERT ET AL., EXECUTORS OF LAWRENCE, ET AL. CEETIOEAEI TO THE CIRCUIT COUET OF APPEALS FOE THE SECOND CIECUIT. No. 305. Argued April 17, 21, 1919. Decided June 9, 1919. To constitute laches it is essential that
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Leatherwood
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. v. LEATHERWOOD. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, SECOND SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT,' OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 249. Submitted March 19, 1919. Decided June 9,1919. Under the Carmack Amendment,
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.