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
Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co. v. City of Lincoln
LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY v. CITY OF LINCOLN ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. No. 52. Argued October 5, 8, 1917. Decided June 2,1919. A gas company, pending a suit to decla
The Lake Monroe
THE LAKE MONROE. ON PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS. No. 30, Original. Argued April 21, 22, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. Under the Act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182, empowering the President, inter alia, to requisition
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. City & County of Denver
DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ET AL. DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE CITY A
Parker v. Richard
PARKER, PARKER, AS SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, ET AL. v. RICHARD ET AL., CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF RICHARD. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 313, 563: Argued April 24,1919. Decided June 2,1
Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Brice
BRAINERD, SHALER & HALL QUARRY COMPANY v. BRICE, AS SOLE SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF VAN SCHAICK, ET AL. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 431. Submitted March 17, 1919. Decided June 2,191
Flanders v. Coleman
FLANDERS, AS TRUSTEE OF COLEMAN, v. COLEMAN. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. No. 419. Argued April 14, 15, 1919. Decided June. 2, 1919.- In a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to set a
Dana v. Dana
DANA, INDIVIDUALLY, v. DANA, EXECUTOR OF DANA, ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OP THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS. No. 276. Argued March 24, 1919. decided June 2, 1919. A judgment.holding certain shares of such a. character as to come
Capital Trust Co. v. Calhoun
CAPITAL TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR OF ARNOLD, v. CALHOUN. EEEOE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF .. KENTUCKY. No. 368. Argued May 2, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. For the prosecution of a claim for taking and use of private property
United States v. Ferger
UNITED STATES v. FERGER ET AL. (NO. 2). No. 777. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. Argued April 29, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. Congress has power, under the commerce clause, to forbid and p
United States v. Ferger
UNITED STATES v. FERGER ET AL. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 776. Argued April 29, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. Under the commerce clause, Congress has power to deal with acts not in
Macleod v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
MACLEOD ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 957. Argued May 5, 6, 1919. Decided June
Burleson v. Dempcy
BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, v. DEMPCY ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 1006. Argued May 5, 6, 1919. Dec
Kansas v. Burleson
STATE OF KANSAS v. BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, ET AL. IN EQUITY. No. 31, Original. Argued May 5, 6, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. Decided on the authority of Dakota, Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, ante, 163. Bill dismissed. The case
Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota ex rel. Payne
DAKOTA CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY ET AL. v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA EX REL. PAYNE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH ■ DAKOTA. No. 967. Argued May 5, 6, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. The Joint Resolution o
Public Service Co. v. Corboy
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS v. CORBOY, DRAINAGE COMMISSIONER OF THE CALUMET DITCH. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA. No. 258. Argued March 20, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. The Di
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota ex rel. Langer
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. v. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ON THE RELATION OF LANGER, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, No. 976. Argued May 5, 1919. Decided June 2, 1919. Under the “Federal Con
Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
KINZELL v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. CERTIORARI to the supreme court op the state op IDAHO No. 485. Argued April 15, 1919. Decided May 19, 1919. In the progress of filling in earth to replace a railroad trestle used in
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 192. Argued April 17, 1919. Decided May 19, 1919. It is a perversion of the rule requiring assignments of error to multip
Carey v. South Dakota
CAREY v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 346. Submitted April 29, 1919, Decided May 19,1919, Section 29, Laws of South Dakota, 1909, c. 240, which forbid shipment by carrier of wild ducks
Berkman v. United States
BERKMAN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 865. Argued April 16, 1919. Decided May 19, 1919. A defendant under indictment who, pursuant to an order obtained o
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Oklahoma
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL. error .to the supreme court op the state op OKLAHOMA. No. 304. Argued April 17, 1919. Decided May 19, 1919. The court has no jurisdiction on error, under Jud. Code, § 237
United States v. Reynolds
UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 591. Argued March 4, 5, 1919. Decided May 19, 1919. Under the Allotment Act of February S, 1887, § 5, c. 119,24 Stat. 388, the twenty-five yea
Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad v. Smith
PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE & WASHINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY v. SMITH. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP MARYLAND. No. 472. Argued April 15, .1919. Decided May 19, 1919. .An employee of an interstate railroad whose duties were to
Mackay Telegraph & Cable Co. v. City of Little Rock
MACKAY TELEGRAPH & CABLE COMPANY v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 374. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted March 3, 1919.— Decided May 19, 1919. A telegraph company, although engaged in inte
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.