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
Creveling v. Newton
No. 843. John L. Creveling, Petitioner, v. J. T. Newton, Commissioner of Patents. March 4, 1918. Mr. Delos G. Haynes, Mr. Robert S. Blair and Mr. Paul A. Blair for petitioner. No brief filed for respondent.
Egan v. McDonald
EGAN v. McDONALD. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 88. Submitted January 28, 1918. Decided March 4, 1918. Under § 7 of the Act of May 27, 1902, c. 888, 32 Stat. 275, an Indian allotment held under trust patent an
Krueger v. United States
KRUEGER v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 111. Submitted December 20, 1917. Decided March 4, 1918. Land, part of an odd-numbered section within the primary limits, but covered by a valid
William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co.
WILLIAM CRAMP & SONS SHIP & ENGINE BUILDING COMPANY v. INTERNATIONAL CURTIS MARINE TURBINE COMPANY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 393. Argued January 29, 30, 1918. Decided March 4, 1918. The Act
Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co.
BOSTON STORE OF CHICAGO v. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY ET AL. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 363. Argued January 16, 1918. Decided March 4, 1918. Certificates of the facts constituting the basis
United States v. Sweet
UNITED STATES v. SWEET, ADMINISTRATOR OF SWEET. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 99. Argued December 19, 1917. Decided January 28, 1918. Section 6 of the Utah Enabling Act of July 16, 1894, c. 138, 28 Sta
United States v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Co.
UNITED STATES v. J. S. STEARNS LUMBER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. No. 94. Argued December 18, 1917. Decided January 7, 1918. By the treaty of 1842, proclaimed in 1843,
Waller v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
WALLER ET AL., TRUSTEES (UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT) OF WALLER, v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 92. Argued December 17, 1917. Decided January 7, 1918. Plaintiff
Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane
DUNCAN TOWNSITE COMPANY v. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 51. Argued November 15, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. An allotment certificate issued, under the Choctaw-Chickasaw
Kirk v. Olson
KIRK ET AL. v. OLSON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 81. Argued November 23, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. A finding of mineral character made in allowing an entry under the placer mining law is subject to b
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH COMPANY ET AL. v. BALDWIN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 67. Argued November 19, 20, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. The Baldwin patent, original No. 821,580, reissue No. 1
Wear v. Kansas ex rel. Brewster
WEAR, IMPLEADED SUB. NOM. WEAR SAND COMPANY, ET AL. v. STATE OF KANSAS EX REL. BREWSTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 30. Argued November 12, 1917. Decided November 26, 1917. A specific intent to
Hendrickson v. Apperson
HENDRICKSON, JUDGE OF THE COUNTY COURT OF TAYLOR COUNTY, KENTUCKY, v. APPERSON. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 427. Argued October 11, 1917. Decided November 5, 1917. A valid judgment was recovered aga
United States v. Chase
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS TRUSTEE AND GUARDIAN OF THE OMAHA TRIBE OF INDIANS, ET AL., v. CHASE. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 146. Argued October 2, 1917. Decided November 5, 1917. The assignment
Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States
LEE WILSON & COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE- CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 110. Argued October 4, 5, 1917. Decided November 5, 1917. If, in the making of a survey of public lands, an area is through fraud o
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad v. Lane
SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. APPEAR EROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP' COLUMBIA. No. 170. Argued April 18, 1917. Decided June 11, 1917. In view of the power reserved to add to, alter, amen
Hopkins v. Walker
HOPKINS ET AL. v. WALKER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA. No. 234. Submitted October 18, 1915. Decided June 11, 1917. A case arises under the laws of the United States where an appropri
Doepel v. Jones
DOEPEL ET AL., HEIRS AT LAW OF FEARNOW, v. JONES ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA. No. 571. Argued May 8, 1917. Decided June 4, 1917. A preliminary homestead entry, made in the Territory of Oklahoma under agreement
Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.
HART STEEL COMPANY ET AL. v. RAILROAD SUPPLY COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE, CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. . No. 67. Argued April 17, 18, 1917. Decided May 21, 1917. A patent owner sued for infringement in two circuits, the
Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron & Steel Co.
RAILROAD SUPPLY COMPANY v. ELYRIA IRON & STEEL COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 95. Argued April 17, 18, 1917. Decided May 21, 1917. The following patents, viz., No. 538,809, of May 7, 1895, No.
Lane v. Hoglund
LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, v. HOGLUND. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 365. Argued April 11, 1917. Decided May 21, 1917. Section 7 of the Act of March 3,1891, e. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1099, lays upon the S
United States v. Wildcat
UNITED STATES v. WILDCAT, A MINOR, ET AL. ON CERTIFICATE FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 741. Argued April 11, 12, 13, 1917. Decided May 21, 1917. Acting under the enrollment provisions of the
West v. Edward Rutledge Timber Co.
WEST v. EDWARD RUTLEDGE TIMBER COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE • NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 276. Argued May 7, 8, 1917. Decided May 21, 1917. The Act of March 2, 1899, c. 377, 30 Stat. 993, in providing for conveyanc
Ewing v. United States ex rel. Fowler Car Co.
EWING, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, v. UNITED STATES EX REL. FOWLER CAR COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 721. Argued April 17, 1917. Decided May 7, 1917. When an applicant for a patent admits that the
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.