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
French v. Edwards
French v. Edwards et al. 1. Statutory requirements intended for the guide of officers in the conduct of business devolved upon them and designed to secure order, system, and dispatch in proceedings, and by a disregard of which the rights of
Carpentier v. Montgomery
Carpentier v. Montgomery et al. 1. Where a Spanish or Mexican grant of lands in California does not identify the precise tract of land granted, either by description or by reference, the title is an imperfect one, needing the further action
Butler v. Watkins
Butler v. Watkins. I. On a suit for damages by a patentee against a British corporation and its “managing agent,” sent to this country, in having been fraudulently pretending in a series of negotiations to conclude an agreement with him, th
Tucker v. Spalding
Tucker v. Spalding. 1. In an action at law, where a patent of prior date is offered in evidence as covering the invention described in the plaintiff's patent, on a charge of infringement, the question of the identity of the two instruments
Davenport v. Lamb
Davenport v. Lamb et al. 1. The act of Congress of 1836 authorizing the issue of patents for land in the name of deceased parties, who in their lifetime became entitled to such patents, applies to patents under the act of Congress of Septem
Canal Co. v. Clark
Canal Company v. Clark. 1. To entitle a name to equitable protection as a trade-mark, the right to its use must be exclusive, and not one which others may employ with as much truth as those who use it. And this is so although the use by a s
Myers v. Croft
Myers v. Croft. 1. When the grantee in a deed is described in a way which is a proper enough description of an incorporated company, capable of holding land, as ex. gr., “ The Sulphur Springs Land Company,” the court, in the absence of any
Philip v. Nock
Philip et al. v. Nock. The right given by the acts of February 18th, 1861, and July 20th, 1870, of appeal or writ of error without regard to the sum in controversy in questions arising under laws of the United States, granting or conferring
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company. 1. Where a plea relies on a statute authority as a defence, it must allege the facts which it asserts to be so authorized, and cannot pleud generally that it complied with the statute. Hence a plea is bad whic
Gibson v. Chouteau
Gibson v. Chouteau. 1. Statutes of limitation of a State do not apply to the State itself, unless it is expressly designated, or the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that it must necessarily be included; and they do not apply t
Samson v. Smiley
Note. At the same time with the preceding case was adjudged another from the same court with it, to wit, the ease of Samson v. Smiley. The case of Johnson v. Towsley, held applicable although no patent certificate was issued to the claimant
Johnson v. Towsley
Johnson v. Towsley. 1. The question of the eonclusiveness of the action of the land officers in issuing a patent on the rights of other persons reconsidered and former decisions affirmed. 2. The tenth section of the act of June 12th, 1858 (
Knox v. Lee
Legal Tender Cases. Knox v. Lee. Parker v. Davis. 1. A purchase of the property of a loyal citizen of the United States under a confiscation and sale made pursuant to statutes of the late rebel confederacy, passed in'- aid of their rebellio
Smith v. Sheeley
Smith v. Sheeley. 1. Where! a party having an inchoate title to land gave a power to “sell and convey” it, declaring, however, in the power, subsequently, that the attorney was authorized “ to sell and convey such interest as I have and suc
Railroad Co. v. Dubois
Railroad Company v. Dubois. 1. Construction of Dubois’s patent, of September 23d, 1862, “for building piers for bridges, and setting the same.” Held, to bo for a device or instrument used in a process, and not for the process itself. 2. It
Whiteley v. Kirby
Whiteley v. Kirby. The inventions of Nelson Piatt and of Alfred Churchill, patented, the former June 12,1849, the latter March 3d, 1841 (harvesters), contained nothing -which antedated the peculiar device secured by patent to Byron Dins-mor
Cook v. Burnley
Cook v. Burnley. 1. The title of Juan Cano, a colonist in the empressario grant of Martin De Leon, and to whom the commissioner of that colony conveyed a league of land April 11, 1835, was a good title. The case of White v. Burnley (20 Howa
Seymour v. Osborne
Seymour v. Osborne. 1. The invention of William H. Seymour and of Palmer & Williams, explained and defined. 2. The grant of letters patent by the commissioner of patents when lawfully exercised, is primé facie evidence that the patentee is
Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co.
Eureka Company v. Bailey Company. 1. A contract in writing may he binding on a corporation though a private seal of one of its officers was used instead of the corporate seal, and though no record may be found authorizing the officer to mak
Meader v. Norton
Meader et al. v. Norton. 1. Nothing more is contemplated by proceedings under the act of Congress of March 3d, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, than the separation of lands owned by individuals from the publi
Brobst v. Brock
Brobst v. Brock. 1. If for any reason appearing in the record it is clear that a plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, cannot recover in the. action, tho court will not determine whether error was committed in instructions given
Railroad Co. v. Trimble
Railroad Company v. Trimble. 1. A deed by which a party convoys “ all. his property and estate, whatsoever and wheresoever, of every kind and description,” carries patent right's and extensions, if the party own any. 2. A decree in equity i
Smith v. Stevens
Smith v. Stevens. 1. Under the act of Congress of May 26th, 1860, referring to the treaty of June 3d, 1825, between the United States and the nation of Kansas Indians (which reserved certain tracts of land for the benefit of particular half
Clark v. Bousfield
Clark v. Bousfield. A claim for arranging an elastic bed for printing designs, is not a claim for a design under the eleventh section of the act of March 2d, 1861, entitled “ An act in addition to an act to promote the progress of the usefu
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.