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
Sweringen v. St. Louis
SWERINGEN v. ST. LOUIS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 187. Argued March 4, 5, 1902. Decided April 7, 1902. The question involved in this case upon the merits is, in substance, whether the plaintiff is entitled to
Gwin v. United States
GWIN v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 172. Argued February 26, 28, 1002. Decided March 24, 1902. A decree of the District Court of the United States for the N
Emblen v. Lincoln Land Co.
EMBLEN v. LINCOLN LAND COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 147. Submitted January 29,1902. Decided March. 24, 1902. While a contest over a preemption entry was pending, Congress passed an act confir
Busch v. Jones
BUSCH v. JONES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 96. Argued January 14, 1902. Decided March 17, 1902. The aippellees’ contention as to jurisdiction in this case is not justified for reasons expressed in Clar
United States v. Martinez
UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. No. 169. Argued and submitted January 31, 1902. Decided March 3, 1902. Under the Court of Private Land Claims Act a party holding from the Spanish or Mexican governmen
Wilson v. Standefer
WILSON v. STANDEFER. error’ to the court oe. civil appeals eor the third .supreme JUDICIAL DISTRICT OE THE STATE OE TEXAS. No. 105. Argued January 16, 1902. Decided March 3, 1902. This court, whén reviewing the final judgment of a state cou
United States v. Baca
UNITED STATES v. BACA. APPEAR FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. No. 170. Argued January 31,1902. Decided February 24, 1902. Under tlie act of Congress of March 3, 1891, c. 539, the Court of Private Land Claims has no jurisdiction-to co
Lykins v. McGrath
LYKINS v. McGRATH. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 90. Argued and submitted January 13, 1902. — Decided February 24, 1902. It having been settled by Lomax v. Pickering, 173 U. S. 26, that when
United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad
UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 25. Argued April 18, 19, 1901 January 27, 1902. This case is a continuation of Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. Unit
Groeck v. Southern Pacific Railroad
GROECK v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 82. Argued December 5, 6, 1901. Decided January 13, 1902. This case was argued and submitted with Southern Pacific Railroad Co
Southern Pacific Railroad v. Bell
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. BELL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 20. Argued and submitted December 5, 6, 1901. Decided January 13, 1902. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company took no title to lands w
Midway Co. v. Eaton
MIDWAY COMPANY v. EATON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 80. Argued December 4, 5, 1901. Decided January 13, 1902. Under the act of July 17, 1854, c. 83, 10 Stat. 304, Sioux half-breed certificates were issued to O
United States Repair & Guarantee Co. v. Assyrian Asphalt Co.
UNITED STATES REPAIR AND GUARANTEE COMPANY v. ASSYRIAN ASPHALT COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOB THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 61. Argued October 28, 29, 1901. Decided January 6, 1902. Patent No. 501,537, for an improved method of
Maese v. Herman
MAESE v. HERMAN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 226. Argued November 6, 7, 1901. Decided January 6, 1902. The sole authority to the General Land Office to issue the patent for the land in dispute in this c
Schrimpscher v. Stockton
SCHRIMPSCHER v. STOCKTON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 19. Argued November 22, 1901. Decided January 6, 1902. The deed of an Indian, who has received a patent of land providing that it should never be sold or conve
Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v. Rahtjen's American Composition Co.
HOLZAPFEL’S COMPOSITIONS COMPANY v. RAHTJEN’S AMERICAN COMPOSITION COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 64. Argued April 25, 26, 1901. Decided October 21, 1901. This was a controversy relating to a trade-m
Calhoun Gold Mining Co. v. Ajaz Gold Mining Co.
CALHOUN GOLD MINING COMPANY v. AJAZ GOLD MINING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP COLORADO. No. 195. Argued March 13, 14, 1901. Decided May 27, 1901. The rights conferred upon the locators of miuing locations by Rev. Stat.
Banker v. Harvey
BANKER v. HARVEY. QUEVAS v. HARVEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Nos. 209, 210. Argued March 20, 21, 1901. Decided May 13, 1901. The facts in these two cases are so nearly alike that the court thinks it sufficient
Speed v. McCarthy
SPEED v. McCARTHY. EKKOS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. No. 230. Argued April 10, 11, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901. As against tlie purchaser of interests in mining claims after the location ■ certificates were rec
Whitney v. United States
WHITNEY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. No. 133. Argued March 1, 1901. Decided April 15, 1901. In reviewing questions arising out of Mexican laws relating to land titles, it is difficult to determine with any
Mitchell v. Furman
MITCHELL, GOVERNOR, AND BLOXHAM, COMPTROLLER, OF FLORIDA, v. FURMAN. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP FLORIDA. No. 23. Argued October 17, 18, 1800. Decided March 11, 1901. The record considered
Hobbs v. Beach
HOBBS v. BEACH. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 139. Argued January 16,17, ¿900. Decided March 5, 1901. The first three and sixth claims of reissued letters patent No. 11,167 to Fred H. Beach for a mach
Gardner v. Bonestell
GARDNER v. BONESTELL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 143. Argued January 17,18,1901. Decided February 25, 1901. It is a well settled rule of law tliat tlie power to make and correct surveys of the public lands be
Moore v. Stone
MOORE v. STONE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. No 48. Argued October 15, 16,1900. Decided January 7, 1901. Hewitt v. Schultz, ante, 139, again followed. On the 12th day of December, 1888, the Northern Pacific Railroa
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.