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
1920 Cases
281 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
Eastern Extension, Australasia & China Telegraph Co. v. United States
EASTERN EXTENSION, AUSTRALASIA & CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED, v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 357. Argued December 15, 1919. — Decided January 12, 1920. The Court of Claims is without jurisdiction of a claim base
Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 73. Argued November 13, 1919. — Decided January 12, 1920. Under the Income Tax Act of 1913, § G, (a), (b), as under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the
Mail Divisor Cases
THE MAIL DIVISOR CASES. APPEALS PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. Nos. 109, 132, 133, 232. Argued December 17, 18, 19, 1919. — Decided January 12, 1920. The Act of March 3,1873, c. 231,17 Stat. 558, in appropriating “for increase of compensation fo
Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye
BIRGE-FORBES COMPANY v. HEYE. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 76. Argued November 13, 14, 1919. — Decided January 12, 1920. A judgment for an alien enemy is objectionable only in so far as it may give a
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Boegli
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. BOEGLI. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. . No. 83. Submitted December 19, 1919. — Decided January 12, 1920. • An act of Congress regulating a subject of interstate commerce is not to be
Duhne v. New Jersey
DUHNE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY ET AL. MOTION POE LEAVE TO PILE BILL OP COMPLAINT. No. —, Original. Argued January 5, 1920. — Decided January 12, 1920. The federal courts have no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a citizen against his own Stat
Twohy v. Doran
No. 251. George J. Twohy, Executor, etc., v. E. J. Doran, Commissioner of the Revenue, et al. Error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Motion to dismiss submitted December 22, 1919. Decided January 5, 1920.
Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey
JACOB RUPPERT, A CORPORATION, v. CAFFEY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 603. Argued November 20, 21; 1919.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE ÍOE CALIFORNIA. No. 118. Submitted December 18, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. Certiorari is the pro
Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Davis
MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE COMPANY v. DAVIS ET AL. ERROR TO THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 192. Motion to dismiss submitted December 8, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. The' Supreme Court of Missouri, exercising b
Schall v. Camors
SCHALL ET AL. v. CAMORS ET AL., TRUSTEES OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATES OF LEMORE, BANKRUPT, AND OF CARRIERE, BANKRUPT. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 84. Argued November 17, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920.
Hays v. Port of Seattle
HAYS v. PORT OF SEATTLE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF-THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 70. Argued November 12, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. A bill setting up obligations of a contract with a State
Producers Transportation Co. v. Railroad Commission
PRODUCERS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 219. .Argued December 12, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. If in the beginning or during it
United States v. Poland
UNITED STATES v. POLAND ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 29. Argued November 19, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. A bill to set aside a patent partly because of a false representation, alleged to
United States v. Standard Brewery, Inc.
UNITED STATES v. STANDARD BREWERY, INCORPORATED. UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN BREWING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT. OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. , ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN D
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. United States
ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.' No. 71. Argued November 12, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. A railroad'company whioh contracted to carry .the mail for a com-. ’. pensa
City of Winchester v. Winchester Water Works Co.
CITY OF WINCHESTER ET AL. v. WINCHESTER WATER WORKS COMPANY. APPEAL PROM'THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP KENTUCKY. No. 51. Argued October 24, 1919. — Decided January 5, 1920. A city cannot regulate the ra
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.