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
Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co.
Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold and Silver Mining Company. 1. At the time of the passage of the Nevada Enabling Act, approved March 21, 1861 (13 Stat. 30), sections 16 and 36 in the several townships in Nevada had not been surveyed, nor had Congr
White v. Luning
White et al. v. Luning. 1. The rule that monuments, natural or artificial, rather than courses and distances, control in the construction of a conveyance of real estate, will not be enforced, when the instrument would be thereby defeated, a
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company et al. 1. Where the claim for a patent for an invention, which consists of a product dr a manufacture made in a defined manner, refers in terms to the antecedent description in the specification of
Russell v. Dodge
Russell v. Dodge. 1. Where a reissued patent is granted upon a surrender of the original, for its alleged defective or insufficient specification, such specification. cannot be substantially changed in the reissued patent, either by the add
Cohn v. United States Corset Co.
Cohn v. United States Corset Company. 1. To defeat a party suing for an infringement-of letters-patent, it is sufficient to plead and prove that prior to his supposed invention' or diseovery the thing patented to him had been patented, or a
Dalton v. Jennings
Dalton v. Jennings. Letters-patent No. 124,340, issued to John Dalton, March 5,1872, for “ an alleged new and useful improvement in ladies’ hair-nets;” are void, because his specification and claim precisely and accurately describe various
Sherman v. Buick
Sherman v. Buick. 1. Testimony, whether parol or documentary, which shows a want of power in officers who issue a patent, is admissible in an action at law to defeat a title set up under it. In such case, the patent is not merely voidable,
French v. Fyan
French v. Fyan et al. 1. The act of Sept. 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519), granting swamp-lands, makes it the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to identify them, make lists‘thereof, and cause patents to be issued therefor. Held, that a patent so
Ryan v. Carter
Ryan et al. v. Carter et al. 1. The first section of the act of June 13, 1812 (2 Stat; 748), mating further'provision for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Missouri, confirms, proprio vigore, the rights, titles, and claims to
Birdsall v. Coolidge
Birdsall et al. v. Coolidge. 1. In an action at law for the infringement of letters-patent, the rule as to the mi-asure of damages is, that the verdict of the jury must be for the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, subject to the ri
Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad v. United States
Leavenworth, Lawrence, and Galveston Railroad Company v. United States. 1. Where rights claimed under the United States are set up against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no question of the purpose of Congress to confe
Hammond v. Mason & Hamlin Organ Co.
Hammond et al. v. Mason and Hamlin Organ Company. 1. A contract concerning the nse of a patented invention bound the “ parties and their legal representatives to the covenants and agreements of the contract.” A plea alleged that the defenda
Burdell v. Denig
Burdell et al. v. Denig et al. 1. In oases where profits are the proper measure of damages for the infringement of a patent, such profits as the infringer has made, or ought to have made, govern, and not those which the plaintiff" can show
Rector v. United States
HOT SPRINGS CASES. Rector v. United States; Hale v. United States; Gaines et al. v. United States; Russell v. United States. 1. The third section of an act of Congress, approved April 20,1832 (4 Stat. 60S), which is still in force, enacts t
Morrison v. Jackson
Morrison et al. v. Jackson. In 1802 a concession of six thousand arpents of land was made to S. by the acting Spanish governor of Upper Louisiana. An official survey, made by the officer designated in the concession, and in part fulfilment
Taylor v. Secor
STATE RAILROAD TAX CASES. Taylor, Collector, et al., v. Secor et al. Miller, Collector, et al., v. Jessup et al. Miller, Collector, et al., v. Kidder et al. 1. While this court does not lay down any absolute rule limiting the powers of a co
Miller v. Dale
Miller et al. v. Dale et al. 1. In an action of ejectment for land in California, where both parties assert title to the premises, — the plaintiff under a concession of the former government, confirmed by the tribunals of the United States,
Ives v. Hamilton
Ives et al. v. Hamilton, Executor. 1. Where an improvement in sawmills, for which letters-patent were issued, consists of the combination of the saw with a pair of curved guides at the upper end of the saw, and a lever, connecting-rod or pi
Clements v. Macheboeuf
Clements v. Macheboeuf et al. 1. Where a party, holding a patent from the United States for certain lands, authorized, by a power of attorney, his agent “ to act upon the application and demand of any person actually owning ” town-lots in D
Reckendorfer v. Faber
Reckendorfer v. Faber. 1. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents in the allowance and issue of a patent creates aprima facie right only; and, upon all the questions involved therein, the validity of the patent is subject to examination
Shepley v. Cowan
Shepley et al. v. Cowan et al. X. Whenever, in the disposition of the public lands, any action is required to be taken by an officer of the land department, all proceedings tending to defeat such action are impliedly inhibited. Accordingly,
Welton v. Missouri
Welton v. The State of Missouri. 1. A license tax required for the sale of goods is in effect a tax upon the goods themselves. • 2. A statute of Missouri which requires the payment of a license tax from persons who deal in the sale of goods
Sewall v. Jones
Sewall v. Jones. 1. Patents No. 34,928, dated April 8, 1862,- and No. 35,274, dated May 13,1882, issued to Isaac Winslow for a new and useful improvement in preserving Indian corn, are void for want of novelty. 2. To entitle a party to reco
Roberts v. Ryer
Roberts v. Ryer. .1. The doctrine announced in Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, — that “a mere carrying forward .or new or more extended application of the original thought, a change only in form, proportions, or degree, doing substantially
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.