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
1922 Cases
268 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
Gaston, Williams & Wigmore of Canada, Ltd. v. Warner
GASTON, WILLIAMS & WIGMORE OF CANADA, LTD. v. WARNER. CEETIOEAEI TO THE CIBCUIT COUET OP APPEALS' FOE- THE SECOND CIECTJIT. No. 59. Argued October 13, 1922. — Decided November 13, 1922. The Canadian owner of a British ship of a Canadian por
Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle
TAKUJI YAMASHITA ET AL. v. HINKLE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT, OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 177. Argued October 3, 4, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Persons of the Japanese race, b
Takao Ozawa v. United States
TAKAO OZAWA v. UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 1. Argued October 3, 4, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Section 2169 of the Revised’ Statutes, which is part of Title XXX dealing wit
Zucht v. King
ZUCHT, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, ETC. v. KING ET AL. ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS, FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, OP THE STATE OP. TEXAS. No. 84. Argued October 20, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. A city ordinance is a law of a Stat
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Settle
BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SETTLE ET AL., PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF W. H. SETTLE & CO. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 83. Argued October 20, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1.
Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
KEOGH v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR- THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 51. Argued October 12, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Approval of rates as reasonable and non-discriminatory, by
The Sao Vicente
THE SAO VICENTE. CERTIORARI ÍO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP AÍPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 279-283. Argued October 3, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. A consul general is not competent, merely by virtue of his office, to appear and claim immu
Ohio ex rel. Seney v. Swift & Co.
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. SENEY, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, v. SWIFT & COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 67. Argued October 16, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. Where.a litigant
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Fruchter
NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY v. FRUCHTER, AN INFANT, &c. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN A HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY v. FRUCHTER. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 35, 36. Argued October 6, 9, 19
Browne v. Thorn
BROWNE v. THORN ET AL., PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS THORN & MAGINNIS. ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 88. Argued October 20, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. In an action by brokers to rec
McKee v. Gratz
McKEE ET AL. v. GRATZ. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 61. Argued October 13, 16, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. The Missouri statute declaring that title to all birds, game and fish shall be in t
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. United States
KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 58. Argued October 13, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1 The Court will not reexamine the findings of fact made by the Court of Claims upon evidence. P
Duesenberg Motors Corp. v. United States
DUESENBERG MOTORS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 80. Argued October 19, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. A contractor who incurred expense under a contract to manufacture articles for the Government fo
Bratton v. Chandler
BRATTON ET AL. v. CHANDLER ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COPARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF CHANDLER & WALDEN, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES , FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. No. 239. Argued October 10, 1922
Ortega Co. v. Triay
ORTEGA COMPANY v. TRIAY, RECEIVER OF JACKSONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. No. 75. Argued October 18, 19, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Under legislati
United States v. Bowman
UNITED STATES v. BOWMAN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR . THE' SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 69. Argued October 17, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. A criminal statute dealing w-ith acts that are directly injur
Ryan v. United States
RYAN v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 64. Argued October 16, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Under §§ 2733 and 2737, Rev. Stats., and the Act of March 3, 1881, c. 132, 21 Stat. 429, the Secretary of the Treasury wa
Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States
BREWER-ELLIOTT OIL & GAS COMPANY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT1. . No. 52. Argued October 12, 13, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Where an act of Congress setting apart an
National Union Fire Insurance v. Wanberg
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WANBERG. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF' THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. No. 32. Submitted. October 6, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. The law of North Dakota (Comp. Laws 1913, § 4902), providing that
Freund v. United States
FREUND ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. FREUND ET AL. APPEALS PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. Nos. 29, 37. Argued October 5, 6, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. •1. Broad provisions in a government contract, authorizing the Government to
Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Kansas
WICHITA RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 27. Argued April 24, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. Jurisdiction acquire
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. NYE Schneider Fowler Co.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. NYE SCHNEIDER FOWLER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 24. Argued April 18, 1922. Decided November 13, 1922. 1. A state statute making the initial railroad carrier li
Helm v. American Hawaiian Steamship Co.
No. 538. Frank P. Helm v. American Hawaiian Steamship Company. October 23, 1922. Mr. Nathan H. Frank and Mr. Irving H. Frank for petitioner. Mr.' Stanley Moore for respondent.
Woolwine Metal Products Co. v. Boyle
No. 521. Woolwine Metal Products Company v. Willis J. Boyle, Sr. October 23, 1922. Mr. Frederick S. Lyon for petitioner. Mr. John H. Miller for respondent.
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.