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
Read v. Bowman
Read v. Bowman. 1. A declaration that a certain improvement, containing in reality one principal and three distinct minor improvements, was patented on a day named, is supported by evidence that four patents — reissues—were subsequently gra
Sutter Case
The Sutter Case. V. On the 18th of June, 1841, Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of California, issued to John A. Sutter, for himself and colonists, a grant ' of land designated as New Helvetia, of the extent of eleven squaro leagues, as exhi
United States v. Stone
United States v. Stone. 1. The United States may properly proceed by bill in equity to have a judicial decree of nullity and an order of cancellation of a patent issued by itself, ignorantly or in mistake, for lands reserved from sale by la
United States v. Billing
United States v. Billing. 1. The doctrine of United. States v. Halleck (1 Wallace, 439), that the decrees of the District Court on California land surveys under the acts of Congress are final, not only as to the questions of title, hut as t
Tobey v. Leonards
Tobey v. Leonards. 1. Positive statements in an answer to a bill inequity — tbe answer being responsive to tbe bill — are not to be overcome, except by more testimony than that of one witness; but by such superior testimony they may be over
Case v. Brown
Case v. Brown. A claim for a combination of several devices, so combined together as to produce a particular 'result, is not good as a claim for “ any mode of combining those devices which would produce that result,” and can only he sustain
Freeborn v. Smith
Freeborn v. Smith. 1. When Congress has passed an act admitting a Territory into the Union as a State, .but omitting to provide, by such act, for the disposal of cases pending in this court on appeal or writ of error, it may constitutionall
Heckers v. Fowler
Heckers v. Fowler. 1. A declaration in covenant by a patentee, setting out a sealed contract by defendant to pay him a certain tariff in consideration of an exclusive right to use the patent within a certain district, is good. 2. The practi
Humiston v. Stainthorp
Humiston v. Stainthorp. A- decree in chancery, awarding to a patentco a permanent injunction, and for an account of gains, and profits, and that the cause he referred to a master to take and state the amount; and to report to the court, is
Miles v. Caldwell
Miles v. Caldwell. 1, The established rule, that where a matter has been once heard and determined in one court (as of law), it cannot be raised anew and reheard in another (as of equity),'is not confined to cases where the matter is made p
United States v. Workman
United States v. Workman et al. The Governor of California bad no power, on tbe 8tb June, 1846, either under the colonization law of August 18, 1824, and the regulations of November 21,1828, nor yet under the despatch of March 10,1846, from
United States v. Estudillo
United States v. Estudillo. An appeal of a case originating below under the statute of June 14,1860, relating to surveys of Mexican grants in California, and in which the appellants appear on the record as The United States, simply (no inte
United States v. Morillo
United States v. Morillo. 1. When the government does not claim land in California as public land, this court will not entertain jurisdiction of an appeal by the United States from a District Court there under the act of 3d March, 1851, for
Rodrigues v. United States
Rodrigues v. United States. A question of fact, to wit, of the location of survey in a previously confirmed Mexican grant; prior to the examination and decision of which, the court sets forth the difficulties which attend any satisfactory d
Same v. Same
Same v. Same. No. 231. The “Boyden machine” does not infringe the patent of A. B. Taylor. The practice of reissuing patents for the purpose of interpolating abstract generalizations, so as to cover subsequent inventions made by others, is c
Burr v. Duryee
Burr v. Duryee. 1. The practice of surrendering valid patents, and of granting reissues thereon in cases where the original patent was neither inoperative nor invalid, and where the specification was neither defective nor insufficient — the
Turrill v. Michigan Southern
Turrill v. The Michigan Southern, &c., Railroad Company. 1. Patents for inventions are not to he treated as mere monopolies, and therefore as odious in the law, hut are to receive a liberal construction, and under-a fair application of the
United States v. Halleck
United States v. Halleck et al. 1. Where a decree of the Board of Commissioners, created under the act of March 8d, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California, confirming a claim to a tract of land under a
Niswanger v. Saunders
Niswanger v. Saunders. J. The State of Virginia issued, in 1784, a warrant for a soldier of the Con tinental establishment, which was entered in her own borders south of the Ohio. The land having been surveyed, a patent issued; everything p
Bloomer v. Millinger
Bloomer v. Millinger. 1. A grant of a right by a patentee to make and use, and vend to others to be used, a patented machine, within a term for which it has been granted, will give the purchaser of machines from such grantee the right to us
Godfrey v. Eames
Godfrey v. Eames. If an applicant for a patent choose to withdraw his application for a patent, intending, at the time of such withdrawal, to file a new petition, and he accordingly does so, the two petitions are to he considered as parts o
Jones v. Morehead
Jones et al. v. Morehead. 1. Tfie claim of Sherwood, under his patent, granted in 1842, and extended in 1856, for “a new and useful improvement in door-loclcs” — so far as the claim is for “making the cases of door-locks and latches double-
Minnesota v. Bachelder
The State of Minnesota v. Bachelder. 1. Neither the Act of Congress of 3d March, 1849 — the organic law of the Territory of Minnesota, which declared that when the public lands in that Territory shall be surveyed, certain sections, designat
United States v. Sepulveda
United States v. Sepulveda. 1. Previous to the act of Cbngress of June 14th, 1860, the District Courts of the United States for California had no jurisdiction to supervise and correct the action of the Surveyor-General of California, in sur
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.