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
Intellectual Property Cases
2,623 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
Mills v. Stoddard
Adam L. Mills, Plaintiff in error, v. Simeon Stoddard, a Citizen of Indiana, Curtis Stoddard and Daniel Stoddard, Citizens of Ohio, Joseph Bunnell and Lucy Bunnell, his Wife, Citizens of New York, Jonas Foster and Lavinia Foster, his Wife,
Bissell v. Penrose
Lewis Bissell, Plaintiff in error, v. Mary B. Penrose, Defendant. A concession, having no defined boundaries, made by the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Louisiana in 1799, but not surveyed, cannot be considered as “property,” and, as such, pr
Menard's Heirs v. Massey
Amédée Menard’s Heirs, Plaintiffs in error, v. Samuel Massey. In the case of Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 Howard, 284, this court, decided by implication, and now decides expressly, that a general and unlocated concession, granted by the Spanish
Wilson v. Barnum
Jacob P. Wilson, Complainant, v. Daniel Barnum. The following question, sent up to this court upon a-certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court, — viz. “Whether, according to the true construction of the Wood
Marsh v. Brooks
Samuel Marsh, William E. Lee, and Edward C. Delavan, Plaintiffs in error, v. Edward Brooks and Virginia C., his Wife, formerly Virginia C. Reddick, Charles P. Billou and Frances E., his Wife, formerly Frances E. Reddick, Walter J. Reddick a
United States v. Heirs of Boisdoré
The United States, Appellants, v. The Heirs of Boisdoré. Same, Appellants, v. The Heirs of Powers. Same, Appellants, v. The Heirs of Turner. In 1824, Congress passed an act (4 Stat. at Large, 52), entitled “ An act enabling the claimants to
Surgett v. Lapice
Francis Surgett, Appellant, v. Peter M. Lapice and Edward Whittlesey. Where an “ action of jactitation ” or “ slander of title ” was brought in a State court of Louisiana and removed into the Circuit Court of the United States by the defend
United States v. King
The United States, Plaintiffs in error, v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, Defendants. The case of the United States v. King ánd Coxe (3 Howard, 773) reviewed. According to the-practice of Louisiana, where cases are carried to an appellate
Udell v. Davidson
Grant B. Udell and Jacob Miller, Plaintiffs in error, v. Alexander B. Davidson. The act of 1838, (5 Stat. at Large, 251,) relating to preemption rights, provides, that “ before any person claiming the benefit of this law shall have a patent
Barnard v. Gibson
Frederick J. and Samuel W. Barnard and Henry Q. Hawley, Appellants, v. John Gibson. Where a decree in chancery refers th§ matters to a.master to ascertain the amount of damages, and in the mean time the bill is not dismissed, nor is there a
Kennedy's Executors v. Lessee of Hunt
Joshua Kennedy’s Executors et al., Plaintiffs in error, v. Lessee of Jonathan Hunt, John Hagan et al., Defendants in error. Forbes and Company obtained a grant of land in 1807 from Morales, Intendant-General uijder the Spanish government, w
McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs
Duncan McArthur’s Heirs, Complainants, v. Walter Dun’s Heirs. The proviso in the second section of the act passed on the 1st of March, 1823 (3 .Statutes at Large, 773), entitled, “An act for extending the time for locating • Virginia milita
Wagner v. Baird
Peter K. Wagner, and Sidonia Pierce Wagner, his Wife, John Lawson Lewis, Louisa Maria Lewis, Theodore Lewis, Eliza Cornelia Lewis, Alfred. J. Lewis, John Hampden Lewis, Algernon Sidney Lewis, George Washington Lewis, and Benjamin Franklin L
Patton v. Taylor
Hugh M. Patton, Administrator, and Hugh M. Patton and others, Heirs of Robert Patton, deceased, Appellants, v. James Taylor, Administrator, and James Taylor, John W. Tibbatts and Ann W. his Wife, George T. Williamson and Jane M. his Wife, a
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix
The West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs in error, v. Joseph Dix and the Towns of Brattleboro’ and Dummerston, in the County of Windham, Defendants in error. The West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs in error, v. The Towns of Brattleboro’
Fletcher v. Rhode Island
Joel Fletcher, Plaintiff in error, v. The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Defendant in error. This case wag very similar to the preceding one. The principal difference was in the admission of the'fact, that the brandy, fox
Scott v. Jones
John Scott and Carl Boland, Plaintiffs in error, v. John Jones, Lessee of The Detroit Young Men’s Society, Defendants in error. An objection to the validity of a statute, founded upon the ground that the legislature which passed it were not
Barry v. Mercein
John A. Barry, Plaintiff in error, v. Mary Mercein and Eliza Ann Barry. This. court has no appellate power, in a case where the Circuit Court refused to grant a writ' of habeas corpus, prayed for by a father to take his infant child out of
United States v. Boyd
The United States, Plaintiffs in error, v. Gordon D. Boyd and others, Defendants. The act of Cóngréss, passed-on the 24th of April, 1820 (3 Statutes? at Large, 566), which substituted cash payments in lieu of credit sales of the public land
Wood v. Underhill
James Wood, Plaintiff in error, v. William A. Underhill and Aschel H. Gerow, Defendants. In order to obtain a patent, the specification must- be in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any one skilled in the art to which it appert
Wilson v. Turner
James G. Wilson, Complainant and Appellant, v. Joseph Turner, Junior, and John C. Turner, Defendants. The decision of the court in the two preceding cases, namely/that where a patent is renewed under the. act of 1836, an assignee under the
Simpson v. Wilson
Andrew P. Simpson, Joseph Forsyth, and Bagdad Mills, Appellants, v. James G. Wilson. The decision of the court in the preceding case of Wilson v. Rousseau et ah, namely, that when a patent is renewed under the act of 1836, an assignee under
Wilson v. Rousseau
James G. Wilson. Plaintiff, v. Lewis Rousseau and Charles Easton. The eighteenth section of the. patent act of 1836 authorized the extension of a patent, on the application of the executor or administrator of a deceased patentee. Such, an e
Les Bois v. Bramell
Marie Nicolle Les Bois, Plaintiff in error, v. Samuel Bramell, Defendant. A private survey of land, claimed under an .old Spanish concession and presented to the board of commissioners appointed under, the act of 1805, is not conclusive aga
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.