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
Wilson Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo y Marcos
WILSON CYPRESS COMPANY v. DEL POZO Y MARCOS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 135. Argued January 19, 1915. Decided March 15, 1915. Although the jurisdiction of the Federal court may have been invoked sole
Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United States
LINN & LANE TIMBER COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. SAME v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 46, 169. Argued January 27, 28, 1915. Decided March 8, 1915. This court follows the findings of fact of two cou
Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States
WRIGHT-BLODGETT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. SAME. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 151, 152, 154, 155, 156. Argued January 26, 27, 1915. Decided February 2
Lovell-McConnell Manufacturing Co. v. Automobile Supply Manufacturing Co.
LOVELL-McCONNELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. AUTOMOBILE SUPPLY MANUFACTURING COMPANY. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS OR FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 722. Motion for l
Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad v. United States
MINIDOKA & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 19. Argued October 29, 30, 1914. Decided November 30, 1914. Under the policy of the Government to encourage the b
Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co.
DEJONGE & COMPANY v. BREUKER & KESSLER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 18. Argued October 27, 28, 1914. Decided November 9, 1914. 'Under Rev. Stat., §§ 4952,4970, as they were before the act of M
Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad
BURKE v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. LAMPRECHT v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.FOR t THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 279, 280. Argued January 13, 14, 1913. Decided June 22, 1914. The act of
Order of St. Benedict v. Steinhauser
ORDER OF ST. BENEDICT OF NEW JERSEY v. STEINHAUSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF WIRTH. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 267. Argued March 11, 1914. Decided June 22, 1914. In a suit by an eccles
Gilson v. United States
GILSON v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 207. Submitted May 6, 1914. Decided June 8, 1914. The settled rule of this court that the concurring findings of two courts below will not be distu
Stone, Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States
STONE, SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 302. Argued April 23, 1914. Decided June 8, 1914. Where the contract contains a provision for a method of annulment and liquid
United States v. First National Bank
UNITED STATES v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, MINNESOTA. UNITED STATES v. NICHOLS-CHISHOLM LUMBER COMPANY. UNITED STATES v. NICHOLS-CHISHOLM LUMBER COMPANY. APPEALS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 873, 874,
Washington Securities Co. v. United States
WASHINGTON SECURITIES CO. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS PQR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 367. Argued May 7, 8, 1914. Decided May 25, 1914. Findings of fact concurred in by two lower Federal courts will not be disturbe
Logan v. Davis
LOGAN v. DAVIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 247. Submitted March 9, 1914. Decided May 11, 1914. Under § 237, Judicial Code, this court has jurisdiction to review a judgment of a state court denying a claim duly set
Bowling & Miami Investment Co. v. United States
BOWLING AND MIAMI INVESTMENT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 177. Submitted April 17, 1914. Decided May 4, 1914. The guardianship of the United States over allottee Indians does
Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manufacturing Co.
THADDEUS DAVIDS COMPANY v. DAVIDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY. CEETIOEAEI TO THE CIECUIT COUET OF APPEALS FOE THE SECOND CIECUIT. No. 184. Argued January 22, 1914. Decided April 27, 1914. A trade-mark consisting of an ordinary surname is not the
Tevis v. Ryan
TEVIS v. RYAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. No. 189. Argued January 23, 26, 1914. Decided April 6, 1914. Covenants in a contract between individuals who control a corporation, in regard to disposition of its outst
Franklin v. Lynch
FRANKLIN v. LYNCH. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. No. 553. Submitted February 25, 1914. Decided April 6, 1914. The act of April 2Í, 1904, c. 1402, 33 Stat. 189, 204, removing restrictions on alienation of lands of non-
El Paso Brick Co. v. McKnight
EL PASO BRICK COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. JOHN H. McKnight. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. No. 185. Argued January 22, 23, 1914. Decided April 6, 1914. Locators of mining claims have the exclusive right of possessi
Diamond Coal & Coke Co. v. United States
DIAMOND COAL AND COKE CO. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF,APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 192. Argued January 28, 29, 1914. Decided April 6, 1914. A patent for mineral lands secured under a non-mineral-land law by fra
Priest v. Trustees of Las Vegas
PRIEST v. TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. No. 218. Submitted January 28, 1914. Decided March 9, 1914. A judgment in a suit to quiet title to real property in New M
Gauthier v. Morrison
GAUTHIER v. MORRISON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 157. Argued December 19, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Where one specially asserts in the state court a right predicated on the statutes of the United State
Woodward Co. v. Hurd
WOODWARD COMPANY v. HURD. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 142. Argued December 17, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Where the manufacturer of one element of a combination is immune under a decree of
Seim v. Hurd
SEIM v. HURD. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 141. Argued December 17, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. Where the separate elements of the combination are all old, and it is ' only the article resul
Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
RUBBER TIRE WHEEL COMPANY v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 37. Argued May 7, 1913. Decided February 24, 1914. In Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 2
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.