Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 312,996+ 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
1799 Cases
29 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
Reed v. Ingraham
Reed v. Ingraham. Negotiable mstrument. A contract to receive from J. B., or order, certain stocks, is negotiable. s. c. 2 Yeates 487, where there is a full report of the case.
Pemberton's Lessee v. Hicks
Pemberton’s Lessee v. Hicks. Forfeiture. A tenant by the curtesy initiate, has not an estate forfeitable upon his attainder for treason.
Levy v. Wallis
*DECEMBER TERM, 1799. Levy v. Wallis. Presumption of fraud. The act of suffering goods to remain in the hands of the defendant, after they have been levied on, furnishes no presumption of fraud; but if the intention of leaving them is fraud
Ball v. Dennison
*SEPTEMBER TERM, 1799. Ball v. Dennison. Notice of non-payment. When a promissory note has been dishonored by the maker, the indorser is not liable to pay it, if the holder neglects to give him due notice of non-payment. What is due notice
Turner v. President of the Bank of North America
Turner, administrator of Stanley, plaintiff in error, v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of North America, defendants. Jurisdiction. — Parties. Where an action is brought upon a promissory note, in a federal court, by an in
Hazlehurst v. United States
Hazlehurst et al. v. United States. Practice. — Nonpros.
New York v. Connecticut
AUGUST TERM, 1799. Present, Ellsworth, Chief Justice, and Paterson, Chase and Washington, Justices. State of New York v. State of Connecticut et al. Injunction. — Equity process. An injunction will neither be granted by the court, nor a sin
Livezey v. Gorgas
Livezey et al. v. Gorgas et al. Referees. — Damages. fa an action on the case, for the continuance of a nuisance, erected by the defendant’s predecessor in the title, which is referred, the referees have no power to award, that future erect
Ewing v. Houston
*JULY SESSIONS, 1799. Before Rush, Ridlue, Addison, Henry and Coxe, Presidents of tbe Common Pleas. Ewing and wife, Plaintiffs in error, v. Houston and wife. Partition.— Variance. A summons in partition, described tbe property to be divided
Johnson v. Haines's Lessee
* Johnson, Plaintiff in error, v. Haines’s Lessee. Descent. In every ease of intestacy, the heir at common law will take the real estate, where its descent is not specifically altered by an act of assembly. Intestate died on the 13th Februa
Ludlow v. Bingham
JULY SESSION, 1799. Present — McKean, Chief Justice, Shippen and Smith, Justices of the Supreme Court; and Rush, Riddle, Addison and Coxe, President Judges of the Common Pleas. Ludlow, Plaintiff in error, v. Bingham. Conflict of laws. — Att
Roberts v. Wheelen
Roberts versus Wheelen et al.
Reed v. Ingraham
Reed versus Ingraham. THIS was an aftion brought by the aifignee of a ftocfc contract, to recover the amount of the difference, due on the Contraft, which was expreffed in thefe words : “ On the i8tH “ of April 1792,1 promife to receive fro
Wharton v. Fitzgerald
Wharton et al. Executors, versus Fitzgerald. 1799* INDEBITATUS ajfumpfit. The aítion was founded on the following fads :—On the 15th day of July, 1749, Jofeph Ogden, being feizcd in his demefne as of fee, of and in a certain mefluage and lo
United States v. Fries
The United States versus Fries. INDICTMENT- for Tréafcm fey -levying virar, againft the United States, at Bethlehem, in the County of Northampton. The Pi ifoner, after a trial that lafted fifteen days, was con viewed : whereupon Lewis and D
United States v. Insurgents of Pennsylvania
The United States versus The Insurgents of Pennsylvania. SEVERAL, indidiments were found againft perfons charged with High Treafon, by levying war ' againft the United States, in the counties of Northampton zná'Bucks, in the ftate of Pennfy
Hurst v. Hurst
Hurst versus Hurst. THIS caufe being marked for trial, Ingerjott moved for. a. continuance, on the ground, that a Bill in equityhad been continuance, on the ground, that a Bill in equityhad been filed by his client, the Defendant, in the Ci
Pollock v. Donaldson
Prefent~-lREDEH. and Peters, JuJHces. Pollock et al. versus Donaldson. TrilS was an aftion brought by the Underwriters, to re^. cover a premium of 15 per cent on a Policy of Infu-cover a premium of 15 per cent on a Policy of Infu- ■ ranee,
Ewalt's Lessee v. Highlands
Ewalt’s Lessee v. Highlands. Settlement. Pergonal residence must accompany every settlement, on which a survey can be regularly made, unless such danger exists, as would prevent a man of reasonable firmness from remaining on the land; and e
McClay v. Hanna
*MARCH TERM, 1799. McClay v. Hanna et al. Appeal. An appeal from an orphans’ court dismissed, because it did not appear that a definitive decree had been pronounced. When and how an executor shall be charged with property' conveyed to him o
Dallas v. Chaloner's Executors
Dallas, Secretary, &c. versus Chaloner’s Executors. THIS was an ailion of Debt, inftituted in the name of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, on an official bond,' wnich the teftator had givep, with two fureties, for the faithful-dlfch’arge
Breckbill v. Turnpike Co.
Breckbill versus Turnpike Company THIS was an action of Indebitatus -djfumpfit. The caufe was tried at Lancajier, and the J ury found a fpecial ver-ditt in the following terms: “ The Jury find, that B. Breckbill, the Plaintiff, was feized i
Murgatroyd v. Crawford
Murgatroyd versus Crawford. THIS was an aftion ’againft.an Underwriter on a Pbliey of Ihfurance upon the (hip Mount Vernon, warranted to be American property. The fhip was captured by a French Privateer, carried into Porto Rico, and there c
Res'publica v. Wray
Res'publica versus Wray. THE Defendant on the lit of June, 1798, had been appointed treafurer for the County of Cumberland', “ for three years, to commence on the 5th of June followingi” but upon a fuggeftion of improper practices in procur
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.