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
1926 Cases
356 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
Powell v. Anderson
No. 919. Grayson C. Powell, Trustee, v. U. R. Anderson, Bankrupt. March 8, 1926. Messrs. Fred T. Saussy and I. W. Roun-tree for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Sullivan v. United States
No. 899. Con M. Sullivan v. United States. March 8, 1926. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Luhrihg, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely for the United States.
United States ex rel. Markin v. Curran
No. 891. United States ex rel. Jacob Markin v. Henry H. Curran, United States Commissioner, etc. March 8, 1926. Messrs. Joseph M. Hill and Henry L. Fitzhugh for petitioner. Mr. John P. Woods for respondent.
Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries
No. 869. Dunkley Company v. Central California Canneries et al. March 8, 1926. Messrs. Fred L. Chappell ,and William S. Hodges for petitioner. Messrs. Kemper Campbell and Fred K. S. Lyon for respondents.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Thompson Manufacturing Co.
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. THOMPSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP WEST VIRGINIA. No. 178. Argued January 27, 1926. Decided March 8, 1926. 1. The statement that the basis of a car
Weaver v. Palmer Bros.
WEAVER v. PALMER BROTHERS COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE' DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 510. Argued December 11, 1925. Decided March 8, 1926. 1. Legislative determinations are entitled to great
Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.
ALEXANDER MILBURN COMPANY v. DAVIS-BOURNONVILLE COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 107. Argued January 11, 12, 1926. Decided March 8, 1926. 1. Where a patent application fully and adequately disc
Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips
No. 901. Baltimore Steamship Company et al. v. Vernon Phillips, an Infant, by Vernon Phillips, His Guardian ad litem. March 3, 1926. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Chauncey G. Parker for petitioners. Mr. Vernon 8. Jones for respondent.
Graves v. Minnesota
No. 283. Charles H. Graves v. State of Minnesota. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. March 1, 1926. Messrs. George S. Grimes and Russell C. Rosenquest for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton .and James E. Markh
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Baldwin
No. 878. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. M. S. Baldwin, suing by next friend of Marcus Baldwin. March 1, 1926. Messrs. Joseph D. Frank, and F. W..Wozencrajt for petitioner. Mr. S. P. Jones for respondent.
Roberts v. Town of Perry
No. 180. D. D. Roberts and G. A. Collins v. Town of Perry, Florida, et al. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Argued January 28, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. Mr. Thomas B. Adams, with whom Messrs. William E. Kay and Henry C
United States v. Van Zandt
No. 172. United States v. Khleber Milder Van Zandt et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. Argued January 25, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. Messers. W. D. Smith and Alfred A. Wheat, Spec
Risty v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
RISTY et al., COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al. v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME v. NORTHER
Towar Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United States
TOWAR COTTON MILLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 196. Argued January 29, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. ,1. Where there.are no findings of the Court of Claims that claimant suffered any loss or damage under, or
General American Tank Car Corp. v. Day
GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORPORATION et al. v. DAY, SHERIFF AND EX-OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR. APPEAL from the District court of the united states FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA No. 162. Argued January 21, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. 1.
Seaboard Rice Milling Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
SEABOARD RICE MILLING COMPANY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 311. Motion to affirm submitted January 25, 1926. Decided March 1, 1
Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. Forsberg
FLEISCHMANN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. v. UNITED STATES TO THE USE OF FORSBERG et al. ERROR TÓ THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. . '' No. 50. Argued October 15, 1925. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. A bEl of exceptions is not
Chamberlain Machine Works v. United States
CHAMBERLAIN MACHINE WORKS v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.. No. 123. Argued January 12, 13, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. A petition relying upon fraud and coercion to overcome a release of the claim sued on, must state dis
United States v. Cohn
UNITED STATES v. COHN. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP ILLINOIS. No. 130. Submitted January 13, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. Obtaining thé possession of non-dutiable goods from a collector is
United States v. Reading Co.
UNITED STATES v. READING COMPANY. READING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY. UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPAN
Michigan v. Wisconsin
MICHIGAN v. WISCONSIN. IN EQUITY. No. 19, Original. Argued January 5, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. Long acquiescence by one State in the possession of territory, and in the exercise of sovereignty and dominion over it, by another State,
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. United States
CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA. No. 150. Argued January 19, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. An order of the^
Marion & Rye Valley Railway Co. v. United States
MARION & RYE VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 315. Argued January 6, 1926. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. Where the taking (if any) of a railroad, under the Federal Control Act, was purely technical,
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THU FIFTH CIRCUIT. . No. 417. Argued December 2, 1925. Decided March 1, 1926. 1. In a-suit, under, par. 18 of § 402,
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.