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
Eames v. Godfrey
Eames v. Godfrey. Where a patent is for a combination of distinct and designated parts, it is not infringed by a combination which varies from that patented, in the omission of one of the operative parts and the substitution therefor of ano
Appleton v. Bacon
Appleton vs. Bacon & North. Parties engaging the services of an inventor, under an agreement that he shall devote his ingenuity to the perfecting of a machine for their benefit, can lay no claim to improvements conceived by him after the ex
United States v. Grimes
The United States vs. Grimes. 1 The assignee of a Mexican' title was not prohibited from presenting his case to the Land Commissioners in his own name; and where he was assignee of the whole claim, that was his proper method of proceeding.
Kellogg v. Forsyth
Kellogg vs. Forsyth. Reynolds vs. Forsyth. 1. If an exception be seasonably taken, and reserved, it may be drawn out and sealed by the Judge afterwards, and the time within which it may be so drawn out and presented to the . Court, must dep
Dredge v. Forsyth
Dredge et al. vs. Forsyth. 1. An exception taken to the ruling of a Court, before the retirement of the Jury from the bar, may be drawn out in form and ■sealed by the Judge afterwards. • 2 The time within which it may be so drawn out and pr
Lindsey v. Hawes
Lindsey et al. vs. Hawes et al. I This Court will enquire into the facts of a disputed entry of public land, and set aside or correct the decision of a Register or Receiver, or of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, as equity may r
Wright v. Bales
Wright vs. Bales. The statutory enactments of the States of the Union, in respect to evidence in cases at common law, are obligatory upon Judges of the Courts of the United States, who are bound to apply them as rules of decision. Error to
Conway v. Taylor's Executor
Conway et al. vs. Taylor’s Executor. 1. A ferry franchise on the Ohio is grantable, under the laws of Kentucky, to a citizen of that State who is a riparian owner on the Kentucky side; and it is not necessary to the validity of the grant th
Verden v. Coleman
Verden vs. Coleman. 1. A patent was granted to a pre-emptor in 1841 for a tract of land v> hich had been previously assigned, by the direction of the President, to a Pottawatomie Indian, under the terms of the treaty with that tribe. The pa
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly
Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelly. 1. It is the general rule, that the construction given by State courts to State laws and constitutions are binding and conclusive upon the Federal courts; but the rule does not extend to cases in which this
Haussknecht v. Claypool
Haussknecht vs. Claypool et al. 1. The rules of evidence prescribed by the laws of a State are rules of decision for the United States courts while sitting within the limits of such State, within the meaning and subject to the exceptions co
Vance v. Campbell
Vance vs. Campbell et al. 1. Where a patentee, suing for an infringement of his patent,' declares upon a combination of elements which- he asserts constitute the novelty of his invention, he cannot, in his proofs, abandon a. part of such co
Rice v. Railroad Co.
Rice vs. Railroad Company. 1. If Congress pass an' act granting public lands to a Territory to aid in making a railroad, and if, by tbe true- construction of tbe act, tbe Territory acquired any beneficial interest in the lands as eontradis-
Crews v. Burcham
Crews et al. vs. Burcham et al. 1. Where a treaty-with an Indian tribe reserves a certain, quantity of ■ land, to be afterwards selected by the President, and patented to .an individual of the tribe, such reservation creates an equitable es
Singleton v. Touchard
Singleton vs. Touchard. 1.. Where a plaintiff in ejectment claimed under a Mexican title, confirmed and patented according to the act of 1851, the defendant cannot oppose to it another Mexican title not finally confirmed, but pending in the
United States v. Covilland
United States vs. Covilland et al. 1. A confirmation of a Mexican land title in a proceeding conducted in oo name of the original grantee is binding upon the United States, and upon all the assignees of the original grantee. 2. When a surve
Harkness v. Underhill
Harkness & Wife vs. Underhill. 1.. A fraudulent entry of public land allowed by a register and receiver, upon false proofs of settlement, occupancy and housekeeping, may be set aside and vacated by the Commissioner of the General Land Offic
Moffitt v. Garr
Moffitt vs. Garr et al. 1. The surrender of a patent-under the 13th section of the-aet of July ‘, 1836, in judgment of law, extinguishes it — is a legal cancellation of it, and no right can afterwards be asserted upon it. 2. Suits pending f
Bates v. Illinois Central Railroad
Bates vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company. 1. In ejectment for land bounded by a river which has changed its bed and formed a new channel since the date of the. survey, it is proper for the court to let the jury find whether the land in c
Magwire v. Tyler
Magwire vs. Tyler et al. 1. Surveys under confirmations of Spanish titles in the Upper Louisiana country are, in regard to their correctness, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and that officer has power
Gregg v. Tesson
Gregg vs. Tesson. 1.. A patent for a quarter section of land subject to French claims, confirmed by Congress in 1823, is not a good title for a lot within the quarter section, as against a French claimant under the confirming act whose surv
O'Brien v. Perry
O’Brien vs. Perry. 1. Under the third section of the act of 1832, persons who had claims of a certain class under France or Spain, to land upon which they were settlers and housekeepers, might have a right of pre-emption, if they would reli
Sheirburn v. De Cordova
Joseph A. Sheirburn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jacob De Cordova and others. By a statute of Texas, actions of ejectment, trespass to try title, &c., can be maintained upon certificates for bead rights or other equitable titles. But -this court
Tate v. Carney
Charles Tate and others, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John G. Carney and others. Under several acts of Congress the register and receiver of the land office were authorized to grant a certificate to every person who should appear to be entitled
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.