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
Prosser v. Finn
PROSSER v. FINN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE' OF WASHINGTON. No. 64. Submitted December 4, 1907. Decided January 13, 1908. If an entryman’s entry is good when made and the Land Department, by error of law, adjudges the land to b
Winters v. United States
WINTERS v. THE UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 158. Argued October 24, 1907. Decided January 6, 1908. The rule that all the parties must join in an appeal or writ of error unless properly d
Sullivan v. Texas
SULLIVAN v. TEXAS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. ' No. 91. Argued December 20, 1907. Decided January 6, 1908. Where the highest court of the State dismisses an application
Holt v. Murphy
HOLT v. MURPHY. APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP OKLAHOMA. No. 61. Argued December 6, 1907. Decided January 6, 1908. Under the general rule of law that an entry segregates the tract entered from the public domain subject to
Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co.
WERCKMEISTER v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY. EBBOB TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOB THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 29. Argued October 30, 1907. Decided December 16, 1907. Section 4965, Rev. Stat., as amended by the act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 9
American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY v. WERCKMEISTER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH'E SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 28. Argued October 30, 1907. Decided December 2, 1907. In construing a statute, while the court must gain the legislative intent pr
Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County National Bank
OZAN LUMBER COMPANY v. UNION COUNTY NATIONAL BANK OF LIBERTY. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 37. Submitted November 5, 1907. Decided December 2, 1907. Woods & Sons v. Carl, 20
Cortelyou v. Charles Eneu Johnson & Co.
CORTELYOU v. CHARLES ENEU JOHNSON & COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 32. Argued October 31, November 1, 1907. Decided December 2, 1907. In this case this court follows the unanimous opinion of
Lawson v. United States Mining Co.
LAWSON v. UNITED STATES MINING COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 2. Argued October 11, 12, 1906. Decided October 21, 1907. One in possession of the surface of a mining claim under a patent from
Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Blumer
IOWA RAILROAD LAND COMPANY v. BLUMER. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 207. Argued February 26, 27, 1907. Decided May 27, 1907. Under the act of Congress of May 15, 1856, 11 Stat. 9, and the act of the legislature of
Kessler v. Eldred
KESSLER v. ELDRED. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 196. Submitted April 17, 1907. Decided May 13, 1907. Rights between litigants once established by the final judgment of a court of competent juris
Fields v. United States
FIELDS v. UNITED STATES. ERROR, TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 395. Argued March 12, 13, 1907. Decided April 8, 1907. While under § 6 of the Court of Appeals Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 828, a certiorari can only be issu
Moore v. McGuire
MOORE v. McGUIRE. APPEAL FÍJ.OM THE CIRCUIT -COURT OF THE UNITER STATES' FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 222. Argued March 1, 4, 1907. Decided March 25, 1907. Where the bill is brought in the Circuit Court to quiet, and remove a c
Love v. Flahive
LOVE v. FLAHIVE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA! No. 236. Submitted March 8, 1907. Decided March 25, 1907. In a contest over a homestead entry, whether there was a sale and whether the thing sold was or was not the tract
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Slaght
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. SLAGHT. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No. 152. Argued January 11, 1907. Decided March 11, 1907. A judgment on demurrer is as conclusive as one rendered upon proof. The question as
United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock
UNITED STATES ex rel. WEST v. HITCHCOCK. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 194. Argued January 30, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. While the promise of the United States to allot 160 acres to each member of the Wic
Halter v. Nebraska
HALTER v. NEBRASKA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT' OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. No. 174. Submitted January 23, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. A long established and steadily adhered to principle of constitutional construction precludes a judicial t
Smithers v. Smith
SMITHERS v. SMITH. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No. 138. Submitted December 21, 1906. Decided February 25, 1907. When the Circuit Court dismisses a case under the. provisions of § 1 of
Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co.
COMPUTING SCALE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AUTOMATIC SCALE COMPANY. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. No. 175. Argued January 25, 1907. Decided February 25, 1907. While a combination of old elements producing a new an
East Central Eureka Mining Co. v. Central Eureka Mining Co.
EAST CENTRAL EUREKA MINING COMPANY v. CENTRAL EUREKA MINING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 141. Argued January 8, 9, 1907. Decided January 21, 1907. The requirement of parallelism of the end lines of a m
Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co.
MONTANA MINING COMPANY, LIMITED, v. ST. LOUIS MINING AND MILLING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 402. Argued December 10, 11, 1906. Decided January 14, 1907. Where there is a question whether the ju
United States ex. rel. Lowry & Planters Compress Co. v. Allen
UNITED STATES ex.rel. LOWRY AND PLANTERS COMPRESS COMPANY v. ALLEN, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 56. Argued October 24, 25, 1906. Decided December 10, 1906. Rule 124 of the Patent O
City of Monterey v. Jacks
CITY OF MONTEREY v. JACKS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 27. Argued October 16, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. In California, pueblo lands, which were simply ancillary to the execution of the public trust and i
John Woods & Sons v. Carl
JOHN WOODS & SONS v. CARL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. No. 102. Submitted November 7, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. Allen v. Riley, ante p. 347 followed as to power of a State to require one selling patent rights
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.