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
Allen v. Riley
ALLEN v. RILEY. ERROR TO THE StTPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99. Submitted November 6, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. While a State may not pass any law prohibiting the sale of patents for inventions or nullifying the laws of Co
Francis v. Francis
FRANCIS v. FRANCIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MICHIGAN. No. 8. Submitted October 10, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. A title in fee may pass to an. individual by a- treaty without the aid of an act of Congress; and this rul
Goudy v. Meath
GOUDY v. MEATH. ERROR TO THE-SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP WASHINGTON. No. 53. Submitted October 23, 1906. Decided November 19, 1906. Where a State by statute makes' the allotted lands of Indians alienable the same as lands of citizens, and
Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land Co.
ANDREWS v. EASTERN OREGON LAND COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE' STATE OF OREGON. - No. 48. Argued October 19, 1906. Decided November 12, 1906. Although the record of a case here on writ of error may fail to show how the facts on
Red Bird v. United States
CHEROKEE INTERMARRIAGE CASES. RED BIRD et al., CITIZENS OF THE CHEROKEE NATION BY BLOOD, v. UNITED STATES. CHEROKEE NATION v. UNITED STATES. FITE et al., INTERMARRIED WHITE PERSONS, CLAIMING TO BE ENTITLED TO CITIZENSHIP IN THE CHEROKEE NAT
Hodges v. United States
HODGES v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS. No. 14 of October Term, 1905. Submitted October 19, 1905. — Restored to the docket, for oral argument, November 6, 1905. — Argue
Devine v. Los Angeles
DEVINE v. LOS ANGELES. APpEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 207. Argued March 13, 1906. — Decided May 14, 1906. Where diversity of citizenship does not exist a suit can only be main
Oregon v. Hitchcock
OREGON v. HITCHCOCK. IN EQUITY. No. 16, Original. Argued April 5, 6, 1906. — Decided April 23, 1906. Ill the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, eithe
Joy v. City of St. Louis
JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 204. Argued March 9, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. Where diversity of citizenship does not exist, plaintiff cannot make out a
Wisconsin v. Hitchcock
WISCONSIN v. HITCHCOCK. IN EQUITY. No. 12, Original. Argued February 21, 1906. Decided April 2, 1906. The provisions in the enabling act of August 6, 1846, authorizing the people of the then Territory of Wisconsin to form a state government
Brown v. Gurney
BROWN v. GURNEY. SMALL v. BROWN. BROWN v. SMALL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP COLORADO. Nos. 97, 98 and 99. Argued December 5, 1905. Decided April 2, 1906. The Land Department refused to issue a patent on a mining lode locatio
Ex parte National Enameling & Stamping Co.
Ex parte NATIONAL ENAMELING AND STAMPING COMPANY, PETITIONER. PETITION FOR WRIT Oí' MANDAMUS. No. 17, Original. Argued February 19, 1906. Decided March 19, 1906. Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve claim
United States v. Stinson
UNITED STATES v. STINSON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 153. Argued January 25, 26, 1905. Decided March 13, 1906. The Government, like an individual, may maintain any appropriate action to set aside i
United States v. Clark
UNITED STATES v. CLARK. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 359. Argued January 9, 10, 1906 Decided March 5, 1906. The rule that this court will not disturb findings of fact where both the ■ 'Circuit Court an
Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 142. Argued January 24, 25, 1906. Decided February 19, 1906. Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States, No. 1, ante, p.
Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 141. Argued January 24, 1906. Decided February 19, 1906. Although a suit in equity cannot 'be maintained where there is
Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow
ECLIPSE BICYCLE COMPANY v. FARROW. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF -THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 40, 217. Argued November 3, 1905. Decided December 18, 1905. A bicycle manufacturing company made a contract with an inventor to us-', o
Russian-American Packing Co. v. United States
RUSSIAN-AMERICAN PACKING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. Nos. 85, 86. Argued' November 29, 1905. Decided December 18, 1905. Appellant without authority settled on a tract of land on Afognak Island, Alaska, prior t
McCune v. Essig
McCUNE v. ESSIG. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 61. Submitted November 9, 1905.- Decided November 29, 1905. The interest which arises in an- entryman by his entry, who can fulfil the conditions of settle
Estes v. Timmons
ESTES v. TIMMONS. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ■ OKLAHOMA. No. 74. Submitted November 10,1905. Decided November 27, 1905. The decision of the proper officers of the Land Department on questions of fact in a contest is c
Hafemann v. Gross
HAFEMANN v. GROSS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 64. Argued November 9, 1905. Decided November 27, 1905. A preémptor made an agreement with a party advancing money to pay one-fourth of the expenses of making fina
Hartman v. Butterfield Lumber Co.
HARTMAN v. BUTTERFIELD LUMBER COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI. No. 44. Argued November 7, 1905. Decided November 27, 1905. A homesteader, after obtaining his patent, conveyed to a lumber company all the stand
Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. Arnaudet
CORKRAN OIL AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ARNAUDET. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 22. Argued October 24, 25,1905. Decided November 13, 1905. A petition for rehearing to the Supreme Court of the State is too late to
Hyde v. Shine
HYDE v. SHINE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, No. 406. Argued February 21, 23, 1905. Decided May 29, 1905. Section 1014, Rev. Stat., authorizes a removal from a judicial .district
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.