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
1921 Cases
257 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
Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington Railroad
PORT OF SEATTLE v. OREGON & WASHINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP WASHINGTON. No. 107. Argued December 6, 1920. Decided January 31, 1921. 1. The navigable waters i
Hogan v. O'Neill
HOGAN v. O’NEILL, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. APPEAR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 120. Submitted November 8, 1920. Decided January 31, 1921. 1. For the purposes
Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. Stark
STARK BROS. NURSERIES & ORCHARDS COMPANY v. STARK ET AL., TRUSTEES, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF WILLIAM P. STARK NURSERIES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 171. Argued January 21, 1921.
Alaska Fish Salting & By-Products Co. v. Smith
ALASKA FISH SALTING & BY-PRODUCTS COMPANY v. SMITH. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION NO. I, OP THE TERRITORY OP ALASKA. No. 166. Argued January 20, 21,1921. Decided January 31, 1921. 1. In imposing license taxes upon the manufacture of
Berger v. United States
BERGER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE FROM. THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 460. Argued December 9, 1920. Decided January 31, 1921. 1. Upon the filing of an affidavit of a party to a case in the District Cour
Givens v. Zerbst
GIVENS v. ZERBST, WARDEN OF THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT ATLANTA, GA. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA. No. 285. Argued October 13,1920. Decided January 31, 1921. 1. The authority
Kahn v. Anderson
KAHN ET AL v. ANDERSON, WARDEN OF THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT - COURT OF,. THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 421. Argued.December 7, 8, 1920. Decided January 31, 1921, 1. U
New v. McMillan
No. 586. Alexander New et al., Receivers, etc. v. Effie McMillan, Administratrix, etc.
Sanger Bros. v. Hunsucker
No. 170. Sanger Bros., a Copartnership, etc. v. Emily Hunsucker et al.
Nagel v. Iowa
No. 150. Louis F. Nagel v. State of Iowa.
Oklahoma v. Texas
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS, UNITED STATES, INTERVENER. IN EQUITY. No. 23, Original. Orders entered January 24, 1921. The motion of the Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, filed herein on December 20, 1920, for an order to require Frederi
Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
GEDDES ET AL. v. ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 25. Argued April 25,28,1919; restored to docket for reargument December 8,1919; reargued March 3,4,1920. Decided Janu
Jackson v. Smith
JACKSON, RECEIVER OF THE FIRST CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF GEORGETOWN, D. C. v. SMITH ET AL. CERTIORARI to the court of appeals of the district of COLUMBIA. No. 130. Argued December 17, 1920. Decided January 24, 1921. Persons who k
Journal & Tribune Co. v. United States
THE JOURNAL AND TRIBUNE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 86. Argued November 10, 11, 1920. — Decided January 24, 1921. 1. The amount in controversy in a suit in' the Court of Claims, for the purposes of an appe
La Motte v. United States
La MOTTE ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 121. Submitted December 10, 1920. Decided January 24, 1921. 1. As an incident of its guardianship over the Osage Indians, the , United St
Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan
CENTRAL UNION TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, &c., v. GARVAN, AS ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. MERRILL ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES, &c., v. SAME. MARSHALL ET AL., AS TRUSTEES, &c., v. SAME. MARSHALL ET AL., AS T
Panama Railroad v. Pigott
PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PIGOTT, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MORRELL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 133. Submitted January 13, 1921. — Decided January 24, 1921. 1. By the law of Panama, a railroad
Beutel v. Foreman
No. 165. Joseph B. Beutel et al. v. Oscar G. Foreman et al., Trustees, etc.
Director General of Railroads v. Bennett
No. 661. Director General of Railroads v. Mabel Bennett, Administratrix, etc.
Sykes v. United States
No. 627. Joshua Sykes et al. v. United States.
In re the City of Dallas
No. —, Original. Ex parte: In the Matter of The City of Dallas, Petitioner.
United States ex rel. Sykes v. Payne
No. 135. United States ex rel. C. E. Sykes v. John Barton Payne, Secretary of the Interior.
Louie v. United States
LOUIE v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 337. Argued December 8, 1920. Decided January 17, 1921. Upon an indictment of an Indian for the murder of another Indian within the limits of an I
Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. J. F. French & Co.
PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY COMPANY v. J. F. FRENCH & COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MICHIGAN. No. 105. Argued November-19, 1920. Decided January 17, 1921. 1. Upon arrival of a earload of goods at destination, the carri
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.