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
Marshall v. Gordon
MARSHALL v. GORDON, SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 606. Argued December 11, 12, 1916. — Decided April 23,
United States v. Rowell
UNITED STATES v. ROWELL ET AL. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP OKLAHOMA. No. 63. Argued November 2, 3, 1916. — Decided April 9, 1917. Jn the exercise of its guardian powers over tribal Indians th
United States v. Waller
UNITED STATES v. WALLER ET AL. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 697. Argued March 14, 15, 1917. — Decided April 9, 1917. By force of the Clapp Amendment of 1906-1907, chaps. 3504, 2285, 34 Stat. 353
Bunting v. State
BUNTING v. STATE OF OREGON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OREGON. No. 38. Argued April 18, 1916; restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916; reargued January 19, 1917. — Decided April 9, 1917. Section 2 of the General Laws
Gannon v. Johnston
GANNON v. JOHNSTON ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 131. Argued December 22, 1916. — Decided March 6, 1917. Under the Choctaw-Chickasaw supplemental agreement of July 1, 1902, §§ 11, 12, 15 and 16, 32 Stat. 64
State of New Mexico v. Lane
STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND TALLMAN, COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. IN EQUITY. No. 20, Original. Motion to dismiss. Submitted January 8, 1917. Decided March 6, 1917. The State of New Mexico filed it
Board of Trustees of the Sevilleta De La Joya Grant v. Board of Trustees of the Belen Land Grant
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SEVILLETA DE LA JOYA GRANT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN COMMON THEREOF, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BELEN LAND GRANT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP NEW MEXICO. No. 129. Argued December 22, 1916. De
Herbert v. Shanley Co.
HERBERT ET AL. v. THE SHANLEY COMPANY. JOHN CHURCH COMPANY v. HILLIARD HOTEL COMPANY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO , THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 427, 433. Argued January 10, 1917. Decided January 22, 1917. The performan
Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.
HALL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS AND BANKING OF THE STATE OF OHIO v. GEIGER-JONES COMPANY. HALL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS AND BANKING OF THE STATE OF OHIO v. COULTRAP. HALL, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS AND BANKING OF THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL. v. ROS
Dickson v. Luck Land Co.
DICKSON v. LUCK LAND COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 600. Submitted December 6, 1916. Decided January 8, 1917. Issuance of a.'fee-simple patent for an allotment in the White Earth Indian Reservation, Minne
Hill v. Reynolds
HILL, A MINOR, ET AL. v. REYNOLDS, A MINOR. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA. No. 61. Argued November 2, 1916. Decided January 8, 1917. A decision of the Secretary of the Interior adjudicating a contest over certain Choct
Adamson v. Gilliland
ADAMSON v. GILLILAND. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 396. Submitted November 13, 1916. Decided January 8, 1917. Upon considering the evidence the court finds grave reasons for agreeing with the Distri
Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde
MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, ET AL. v. HYDE. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 46. Argued October 27, 30, 31, 1916; additional argument November 1, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. Patent No. 835120, iss
Goshen Manufacturing Co. v. Hubert A. Myers Manufacturing Co.
GOSHEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. HUBERT A. MYERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 60. Argued November 1, 2, 1916. Decided December 11, 1916. When patent rights have been inf
United States v. Nice
UNITED STATES v. NICE. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 681. Argued April 24, 1916. Decided June 12, 1916. The General Allotment Act of 1887 discloses that the tribal relation of the Ind
United States v. Coca Cola Co.
UNITED STATES v. COCA COLA COMPANY OF ATLANTA. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 562. Argued February 29, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. Under the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, the fact that a formula has been made
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
AMERICAN WELL WORKS COMPANY v. LAYNE AND BOWLER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 376. Argued May 5, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. A suit for damages to business caused by a th
Lane v. United States ex rel. Mickadiet
LANE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, v. UNITED STATES EX REL. MICKADIET AND TIEBAULT. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 449. Argued April 10, 1916. Decided May 22, 1916. The general rule that courts have no power to
Farnham v. United States
FARNHAM v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP'CLAIMS. No. 107. Argued March 2, 1916. Decided April 3, 1916. Where the officers of the United States charged with the matter have refused the offer of a patentee for the use of his inventi
Barlow v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
BARLOW v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. error to the supreme court of the state of north DAKOTA. No. 257. Argued March 3, 1916. Decided April 3, 1916. Under the Right of Way Act of March 3, 1875, e. 152, 18 Stat. 482, the rights of a ra
Johnson v. Riddle
JOHNSON v. RIDDLE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 161. Argued January 12, 1916. Decided March 20, 1916. Under the provisions relating to town sites, in the Atoka Agreement bfetween the United States and the Choctaw
Causey v. United States
CAUSEY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 197. Argued January 26, 1916. Decided March 6, 1916. The rule, that findings of fact concurred in by the Master and both ' courts below should not be distu
Union Naval Stores Co. v. United States
UNION NAVAL STORES COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH' CIRCUIT. No. 80. Submitted December 20, 1915. Decided February 21, 1916. A claim of the United States for spirits of turpentine and rosin take
Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros.
HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. v. WOLF BROTHERS & CO. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT C’OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE' • EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 37. Argued October 28, 29, 1915. Decided February 21, 1916. The words “The American Girl” as applied to women’s shoes
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.