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
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
Oklahoma v. Texas
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS. UNITED STATES, INTERVENER. .IN EQUITY. No. 23, Original. JUNE 1, 1921.
Dane v. Jackson
DANE v. JACKSON, TREASURER AND RECEIVER-GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OP THE STATE OP . MASSACHUSETTS. No. 720. Argued April 15, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. This court cannot revise the taxing systems of the States in an a
District of Columbia v. R. P. Andrews Paper Co.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. R. P. ANDREWS PAPER COMPANY. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. SAKS & COMPANY. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. LISNER. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. Nos. 282-284. Argued April 22, 25, 1921. Decided Ju
Sutton v. United States
SUTTON, TRUSTEE OF ESTATE OF HILLSBORO DREDGING COMPANY, BANKRUPT, v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 307. Argued April 29, 1921, Decided June 1, 1921. 1. Acts appropriating specific amounts for the improvement of anavig
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. ESTEVE BROTHERS & COMPANY CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 491. Argued April 12, 13, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. A company engaged in transmitting telegraphic messages
Norfolk-Southern Railroad v. Owens
NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. OWENS. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREMeT'COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 223. Argued March 17, 1921. Decided. June 1, 1921. A railroad corporation, while its road was.under federal control, was . • no
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. v. AULT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 252, Argued March 22, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. A railroad corporation is not liable, either at common- law or under § 10 of the
United States v. Pfitsch
UNITED STATES v. PFITSCH. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 246. Argued March 22, 1921; restored to docket for reargument on question of jurisdiction April 11, 1921; reargued April 2
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Nichols & Co.
YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. v. NICHOLS & COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, No. 216. Argued April 22, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. The Uniform Bill of Lading, approved by the Intersta
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. Mackey
CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. v. MACKEY, AS COUNTY TREASURER OF HUGHES COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 211. Argued April 21, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The
United States v. Hutto
UNITED STATES v. HUTTO (NO. 2). ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. No. 692. Argued April 11, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. Decided upon'the authority of United States v. HvXto, No. 1, ante,
United States v. Hutto
UNITED STATES v. HUTTO ET AL. (NO. 1) ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. No. 691. Argued April 11, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. Revised Statutes, § 2078, declaring that “No person employ
Anchor Oil Co. v. Gray
ANCHOR OIL COMPANY v. GRAY ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT. COURT OF APPEALS FOB THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 188. Argued January 27, 1921 Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The authority of the Secretary of the Interior under § 2 of the Act of May 27,1908
Ex parte Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co.
EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, PETITIONER. ON PETITION FOB WBIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 29, Original. Argued March 15, 16, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. In a suit brought by a gas company against a city to enjoin the
Ex parte New York
EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., OWNERS OF THE STEAM TUG QUEEN CITY, PETITIONERS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OP PROHIBITION ANd/oR WRIT OP MANDAMUS. No. 26, Original. Argued December 14, 1920. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The f
Ex parte New York
EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., PETITIONERS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OP PROHIBITION AND/OR WRIT OP MANDAMUS. No. 25, Original. Argued December 13, 14, 1920. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The power to issue a writ of prohibit
United States v. Bowling
UNITED STATES v. BOWLING ET AL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 295. Argued April 27, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The power of the United States to ensure, by appropriate measures, that land allotted in
Culpepper v. Ocheltree
CULPEPPER v. OCHELTREE. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA. No. 292. Argued April 26, 27, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. Decided upon the authority of McLarm v. Ityeischer, ante, 477. 181 California, 788, affirmed. ■ Th
McLaren v. Fleischer
McLAREN, ADMINISTRATOR of McLAREN, v. FLEISCHER. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA. No. 291. Argued April 26, 27, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. The Act of Maj 14, 1880, c. 89, 21 Stat. 140, provides that-“where any pe
Burdeau v. McDowell
BURDEAU v. McDOWELL. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 646. Argued April 11, 12, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. The United.States may retain for use as evidence in the criminal
United States v. Yuginovich
UNITED STATES v. YUGINOVICH ET AL. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. No. 523. Argued March 10, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. Congress, under the taxing power, may tax intoxicating liquors, notwith
United States v. American Chicle Co.
UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN CHICLE COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 175. Argued January 24, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. The Act of October 22, 1914, c. 331, 38 Stat. 754, imp
Heirs of Garland v. Choctaw Nation
HEIRS OF GARLAND, DECEASED, v. CHOCTAW NATION. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 129. Argued January 12, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. The Choctaw Nation constituted four persons a delegation to represent it in pressing money claims agains
Michigan Central Railroad v. Mark Owen & Co.
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARK OWEN & COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 299. Argued April 28, 1921. Decided June 1, 1921. 1. Under a. “uniform” interstate bill of lading providing that proper
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.