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
Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty
PRESTONETTES, INC. v. COTY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 197. Argued February 18, 19, 1924. Decided April 7, 1924. 1. The ownership of a registered trade mark consisting of a name designating the ow
John E. Thropp's Sons Co. v. Seiberling
JOHN E. THROPP'S SONS COMPANY v. SEIBERLING. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 185. Argued January 21, 22, 1924. Decided April 7, 1924. 1. Patent No. 941,962, granted to one State, November 30, 1909, clai
Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co.
KELLER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS HARTFORD WINDSHIELD COMPANY, v. ADAMS-CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 315. Argued February 27, 28, 1924. Decided April 7, 1924. 1. An ordi
Commonwealth Steamship Co. v. Patent Vulcanite Roofing Co.
No. 857. No. 858. No. 859. No. 860. Commonwealth Steamship Company, Limited, Claimant of S. S. “Turret Crown,” etc. v. Patent Vulcanite Roofing Company, Inc.; Commonwealth Steamship Company, Limited, Claimant of S. S. “Turret Crown,” etc. v
United States v. State Investment Co.
UNITED STATES v. STATE INVESTMENT COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 195. Argued January 25, 1924. Decided February 18, 1924. 1. The questions where the line run by a survey lies upon the gro
Standard Parts Co. v. Peck
STANDARD PARTS COMPANY v. PECK. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 160. Argued January 15, 1924. Decided February 18, 1924. One who is employed and paid by another to develop a process and machinery for ma
Electric Boat Co. v. United States
ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FKOM THE, COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 159. Argued January 11, 14, 1924. Decided January 28, 1924. Where the United States, without disclosure to it of the scope of an application for patent, obtained
Ide v. United States
IDE ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. ' No. 37. Argued April 18, 1923. Decided January 7, 1924. 1. The Act of August 30, 1890, c. 837, 26 Stat. 391, in providing that, in all patents i
Brady v. Work
BRADY, WIDOW, ETC. v. WORK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 121. Argued December 5, 6, 1923. Decided January 7, 1924. 1. A person to whom the Land Department has adjudged t
National Ass'n of Window Glass Manufacturers v. United States
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WINDOW GLASS MANUFACTURERS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 353. Argued November 22, 23, 1923. Decided December 10, 1923. 1. Whether
Heyer v. Duplicator Manufacturing Co.
HEYER, DOING BUSINESS AS T. A. HEYER DUPLICATOR COMPANY, v. DUPLICATOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 75. Argued October 15, 16, 1923. Decided November 12, 1923. The sale, by t
New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott
NEW ORLEANS LAND COMPANY v. BROTT ET AL. BROTT ET AL. v. NEW ORLEANS LAND COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Nos. 64 and 86. Argued October 10, 11, 1923. Decided November 12, 1923. 1. The act of state officials i
Woodbridge v. United States
WOODBRIDGE ET AL., EXECUTORS OF WOODBRIDGE, v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. No. 51. Argued October 5, 8, 1923. Decided November 12, 1923. 1. Any practice of an inventor and applicant for patent through which he, deliberat
Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States
CURTIS, COLLINS & HOLBROOK COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. (And Twenty-three Other Cases.) APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 341, and Nos. 342-364. Argued April 9, 10, 1923. Decided May 21, 1923. 1. Where stockh
American Steel Foundries v. Robertson
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES v. ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, AND SIMPLEX ELECTRIC HEATING COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 291. Argued April 19, 1923. Decided May 21,
Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co.
WORK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF THE CHICKASAW NATION, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES EX REL. Mc-ALESTER-EDWARDS COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 258. Argued April 12, 1923. Decided Ma
Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co.
TOLEDO SCALE COMPANY v. COMPUTING SCALE COMPANY. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. COMPUTING SCALE COMPANY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 339 and 388. Argued March 16, 1923. De
Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc.
LAYNE & BOWLER CORPORATION v. WESTERN WELL WORKS, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 278. Argued March 5, 1923. Decided April 9, 1923. A writ of certiorari, issued to settle a supposed conflic
Oklahoma v. Texas
STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS. UNITED STATES, INTERVENER. IN EQUITY. No. 18, Original: SUPPLEMENT TO PARTIAL DECREE' OF JUNE 5, 1922, ENTERED MARCH 12, 1923. Supplemental decree relating to certain lands in the bed of Red River and bo
Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles
FOX FILM CORPORATION v. KNOWLES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 310, 311. Argued February 27, 1923. Decided March 12, 1923. 1. Under § 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, which allows renewals of
Cramer v. United States
CRAMER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 207. Argued January 15, 16, 1923. Decided February 19, 1923. 1. Lands definitely occupied by individual Indians were excepted from the Centr
Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc.
LUMIERE v. MAE EDNA WILDER, INC. APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 242. Argued January 18, 1923. Decided February 19, 1923. Under the provision of the Copyright Act that suits “ m
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Steinke
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. STEINKE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NORTH DAKOTA. No. 152. Argued December 5, 1922. Decided February 19, 1923. 1. The Act of March 3, 1875, granting railroad rights of way and • s
Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.
EIBEL PROCESS COMPANY v. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 178. Argued January 5, 8, 1923. Decided February 19, 1923. 1. The Eibel patent, No.'845,224, for an improvemen
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.