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
1809 Cases
43 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
Bodley v. Taylor
BODLEY AND OTHERS v. TAYLOR. In Kentucky, it is a good, ground of equitable* jurisdiction, that the defendant hi j obtained a pri- or patent for land to which, the complainant had the better right under the statute respecting lands; and in
Marine Insurance v. Young
THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA v. JAMES YOUNG. The eouvt nion to the jary a? t0 the meaning, op construction, of a written deposition read in evidence in. the cause. It is no ground of reversal that the court below refused a new
Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy
KEMPE’S LESSEE v. KENNEDY ET AL. The inferior ¡^“J11 the county of New-Jersey, m May, UUJ, ail eases of in-treason? and its judgment; altll0Ue'1 rn'°" ,oi
Pierce v. Turner
PIERCE v. TURNER. The aet of as-' flembly
Violett v. Patton
VIOLETT v. PATTON. i'o constitute a considerationsai-y that a benerneSl>toUld the promisor. It is sufficient raffiahie eflows from the pro-that Sthe promise is the iiiducement to ¶ Miiiii aaction • a blank endorsemeut up-piece of paper -wit
United States v. Peters
THE UNITED STATES v. JUDGE PETERS. The legislature 'f a the judgments, „f the omi-is ot’tlK- Hnaed N-j’ite com-t of appeals in erected by ü¡e hre! vise and cm-, of The* state eoui-ts of admiralty, claims of » state m.ay. be ¿'Ted Ty' the de
Hodgson v. Marine Insurance
HODGSON v. THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA. A general poevery "person having an intething insured! and containing that the ' p'w' perty is nen tral, covers belligerent a« ■well as neutral property-covenant on. a policy, it is no
Matthews v. Zane's Lessee
MATTHEWS v. ZANE’S LESSEE The lands in. eluded within the 'Zañeville district by the yet of the 3d Jvlarch, 1803, fcoulrf not, after that date, be sold at the Marietta landofHcc. ÉRROR to the supreme court of the state of Ohio for the count
Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. DEVEAUX ET AL. A corporation aggregate, compi.M'd or eiuzuis of one state, may sue a citizen of another state in the circuit court of th¿ United States. Where the ¡urisdictio.nnf the United °Staies ttepends,
Hope Insurance v. Boardman
THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL. A corpomioti —and ' cannot litigate in the United SlateB, unless in consequence of the character of the individuals frho compose the body politic, -which, character must appear b)
Yeaton v. Bank of Alexandria
YEATON v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. . The. hank mayA™™"fa7* an action, anf eT mis.,„ry note' mude negotiabank,'without ^£e™!0nt;‘i v;¿g 'itfsoívent, although „ent ““¡¡01^ the accommoof notwithstarui'(“’i plica ‘contract of theemloi sor ot a p
Young v. Bank of Alexandria
YOUNG v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. Alexandria upi promissory "enable*8 in that bank, are' entitled to trial at the return term of the wrlt> ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Coumbia, sitting ip Alexandria, in ári action of debt up
Tucker v. Oxley
JOHN AND JAMES TUCKER v. OXLEY, ASSIGNEE OF T. MOORE, A BANKRUPT. Under the of-'the ^United States a joint debt jnay be set off against the separate claim of the asners. Butsucb made^at lav” ia',v. a joint debt ™JerCal> sépaí rate oumum^"bi
M'Keen v. Delancy's Lessee
M‘KEEN v. DELANCY’S LESSEE. TJiuTer the act ot Ucmisvlvania of ins, v/luoh requires acknowledged0 before a jvset\}{c cooniy where the loen thé’imv' established practice before toaeknowledge ■as7¡cc'Jof0t¡.° ° supreme court of theprovince »L
Fairfax's Executor v. Fairfax
FAIRFAX’S EXECUTOR v. ANN FAIRFAX. Upon theissiu of plane adminintravit the jury must find specially the ■ amount of assets in the hands of the executor, otherwise the court cannot render judgment upon the verdict. • if the defendant below
Mandeville & Jamesson v. Wilson
MANDEVILLE AND JAMESSON v. WILSON. Amendments are within the-, discretion of the court below. Quare, whether the court ought to permit araehdments after judgment upon demurrer. In the statute of limitations, the exception in favour of merch
Cooke v. Woodrow
COOKE AND OTHERS v. WOODROW. in an action of judgment* bm low be in favour of the originnl defendant, the value !>f 1.1'° '"alter on the writ of error’1,1 the ¡^th^UnUed States, is the SmagesTn the declaration, to obtain the ui^sEribin* wit
Henderson v. Moore
HENDERSON v. MOORE The refusal c. the court he* low to punt a new trial is not up"n the plea of payment to ^^"upon bond condlto W ¡(le„ce may°he ’received of the with an Ac^"he^ntlff that it was in “’n °£ a“nje" fróm such evicontradicted"’
United States v. Weeks
THE UNITED STATES v. WEEKS. A writ of error r“ctly from the supreme court court of the dis^^th^tai’ ter has a» the original juriscult-court? °
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.