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
Tyler v. Magwire
Tyler v. Magwire. The Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, on appeal, dismissed a petition which sought to have the title to lands held by the defendant, under a patent from the United States, divested, and vested in the complainant. Ero
Holden v. Joy
Holden v. Joy. 1. The treaty of the 29th-December, 1835, between the United States and the Cherokee Indiáns, was not made in virtue of the act of 28th of May, 1830, authorizing an “ exchange” of lands west of .the Mississippi, for _ the ter
Branson v. Wirth
Branson v. Wirth. The government, as appeared by the exemplification of the record of a patent, had granted, January 10th, 1818, to A. the northeast quarter of a certain tract of land, in pursuance confessedly of a warrant and location upon
Railway Co. v. Prescott
Railway Company v. Prescott. 1. The.proviso in the 21st section of the act of July 4th, 1864, amendatory of- the act of July 1st, 1862, to aid the Kansas Pacific Bailway in the •Construction of its road, requiring the prepayment of the cost
Mitchell v. Hawley
Mitchell v. Hawley. •A. patentee of certain machines, whose original patent had still between six and seven years to run, conveyed to another person the “ right to make and use and to license to others the right to make and use four .of the
Kenicott v. Supervisors
Kenicott v. The Supervisors. 1. A legislative act chartering a railroad company and authorizing the construction of a railroad between certain points, authorized, by its 7th, 8th, and 9th sections, the company to borrow money, and authorize
Walker v. Henshaw
Walker v. Henshaw. 'Prior to the 9th of July, 1858, when, the President set apart the surplus of „ land which remained after the Shawnee Indians had obtained their complement under the treaty of the United States with them, ratified Novembe
McNitt v. Turner
McNitt v. Turner. 1. Under the statute of Illinois authorizing the sale of the real estate of. a decedent, and directing the executor or administrator to make out a petition to the county court “stating therein what real estate the said tes
Davis v. Gray
Davis v. Gray. 1 In this case — where a person who had been appointed receiver of a railroad, to which a large grant of lands had been made by a State, was seeking to enjoin the officers of the State which had declared the lands forfeited,
Smith v. Adsit
Smith v. Adsit. 1. "Where 'a complainant setting out a case in the highest State court, for ■ equitable relief against a sale, which a third party had undertaken to make of land, alleged that the party in making the sale had violated an act
Voorhees v. Bonesteel
Voorhees v. Bonesteel and Wife. 1. Affirmative relief will not be granted in equity upon the ground of fraud unless it be made a distinct allegation in the bill. 2. Nor will'a trust alleged in a bill to exist, be considered as proved when e
Gould v. Rees
Gould v. Rees. 1. Where three elements are claimed in a patent, in combination, the nse of two of the elements only does not infringe the patent. 2. The introduction of a newly-discovered element or ingredient, or one not theretofore known
Shutte v. Thompson
Shutte v. Thompson. 1. Although the formalities prescribed by the 30th section of the act of Congress of September 2d, 1789 (1 Stat. at Large, 88), authorizing the taking of depositions de bene esse in certain cases and stating the circumst
Hedrick v. Hughes
Hedrick v. Hughes. 1. The act of Congress of March 6th, 1820, admitting Missouri into the Union, and the act of March 3d, 1823, respecting grants of land to that State, without further grant or patent, vested in the State the 16th section o
Hutchings v. Low
The Yosemite Valley Case. [Hutchings v. Low.] 1. A party by mere settlement upon lands of the United States, with a declared intention to obtain a title to the same under the pre-emption laws, does not thereby acquire such a vested interest
Mowry v. Whitney
Mowry v. Whitney. 1. Asa Whitney’s patent of April 25th, 1848, for an “improvement in the process of manufacturing cast-iron railroad wheels,” was for a process, not for a combination. 2. Where only vague and uncertain directions could be g
Gorham Co. v. White
Gorham Company v. White. I.. The acts of Congress which authorize the grant of a patent for designs contemplate not so much utility as appearance; and the thing invented or produced for which a patent is given is that which gives a peculiar
Dolton v. Cain
Dolton v. Cain. 1. Under the limitation laws of Illinois which declare in substance “that whoever has resided on a tract of land for seven successive years prior to the commencement of an action of ejectment, having a connected title in law
Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Jenkins
Nicolson Pavement Company v. Jenkins. An assignment of a reissued patent, reciting the date and number of the reissue, and that'the original patent had been “ given for the term of fourteen years;” reciting that the assignee had agreed to p
Mowry v. Whitney
Mowry v. Whitney. 1. The ancient mode of annulling or repeating the king’s patent was by scire facias generally brought in the chancery where the record of the instrument was found. 2. In modern'times the court of chancery, sitting in equit
Dent v. Emmeger
Dent v. Emmeger. 1. Inchoate rights in the Territory of Louisiana, such as those made A.D. 1789, by a concession of the then Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana to Gabriel Cerre, were of imperfect obligation on the United States when suc
Easley v. Kellom
Easley v. Kellom et al. 1. Where the Land Department of the government, defying an unfounded pre-emption claim in the government lands set up by a person indebted to several persons, proceeds to sell the lands at public auction, as part of
Armstrong v. Morrill
Armstrong v. Morrill. 1. Judgment in ejectment, in favor of a single plaintiff, sustained, where some counts in the declaration alleged a possession in himself alone, at the time of the ouster, though other counts alleged the possession to
Paige v. Banks
Paige v. Banks. 1. Where in consideration of an agreement by publishers to pay him a certain sum of money, nnd the performance of specified duties in connection with the publication, a reporter of judicial decisions agreed in 1828 “ to furn
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.