Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 253,200+ 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
1829 Cases
44 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
Beach v. Viles
George Beach, Plaintiff in error vs. Jonathan Viles et al. Defendants in error. This being a suit uppn a local statute, giving a particular remedy, in the nature of a foreign, attachment, against garnishees, who possess goods, effects, or c
Bank of Colombia v. Sweeney
The Bank of Colombia, Plaintiffs in error vs. George Sweeney, Defendant in error. The act of the. legislature of Maryland of 1793,'incorporating the bank of Colum- ■ bia, one of the sections of which gives to the bank a summary proceeding a
Le Grand v. Darnall
Claudius F. Le Grand, Appellant vs. Nicholas Darnall, Appellee. The act of the legislature of Maryland, passed in 1796, ,ch. 47, sec. 13, declares • “ that all persons capable in law to make a valid will and testament, may grant freedom to,
Wilkinson v. Leland
David Wilkinson, Plaintiff in error vs. Thomas Leland and others, Defendants in error. J. j; died in New Hampshire, seised of real estate in Rhode Island, having devised the same to his daughter, an infant. His executrix proved the will in
Chirac v. Reinecker
Anthony Taurin Chirac and others, Plaintiffs in error vs. George Reinecker, Defendant in error. •After the plaintiffs had’proved, by'a surveyor; that most of ther lines and streets in.“ Howard.’a late addition to. Baltimore town” had.beén'
English, Smith, Mackall & Hoffman v. Foxall
English, Smith, Mackall and Hoffman, Appellants vs. Catharine Foxall, Appellee. English, Smith, Mackall, Hoffman, M’Kenney and others, Appellants vs. Catharine Foxall, Appellee. A marriage Settlement provided that the trustees, after the de
Buckner v. Finley & Van Lear
William S. Buckner, a Citizen of New York vs. Finley and Van Lear, Citizens of the State of Maryland. Bills of exchange drawn in one -state of tne union, on personsliving in another ■ stale, partake of the'character of foreign bills, and ou
Beatty v. Kurtz
Charles A. Beatty and John T. Ritchie, Appellants vs. Daniel Kurtz, and others, Trustees of the German Lutheran Church of Georgetown, Appellees. A lot of ground had, in the original plan of an addition to Georgetown, been ■ marked “for.the
Conolly v. Taylor
James Conolly and others, Appellants vs. Richard Taylor and others, Appellees. When there is no change of-ihe parties to a suit, during its progress, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the parties, is governed by that condition as
Canter v. American & Ocean Insurance Co. of New York
David Canter, Appellant vs. The American and Ocean Insurance Company of New York, Appellee. A motion to dismiss a suit for wa^t of jurisdiction; applies solely to cases where this Court' has not jurisdiction of the cause; And not where the
President of the Bank of the United States v. Carneal
The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, Plaintiffs in error vs. Thomas D. Carneal, Defendant in error. The evidence'in ,the case) was, that the day when the note became due, the bank being the holder thereof,
President of the Bank of the United States v. Owens
The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States vs. William Owens, Herbert G. Wagooner, George Wagley and Alexander Miller. ■The branch hank of the.United States, at Lexington, Kentucky, discounted a pro-mi’ssory'note,
Bank of Hamilton v. Lessee of Dudley
The Bank of Hamilton, Plaintiff in error vs. The Lessee of Ambrose Dudley, Jun., Defendant. Proceedings far the sale of the real estate of an inféstate, for the payment of debts, were commenced, before the repeal of the act of the legislatu
Mandeville v. Riggs
Joseph Mandeville and others, Appellants vs. Romulus Riggs, Appellee. Where a'bill was filed against the stockholders of a voluntary association for the purposes of banking, and the process was returned “ served” upon some of the parties na
President of the Bank of the United States v. Weisiger
The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, Appellants vs. David Weisiger, Appellee. ’Itere theappellfee Bad died 'after the commencement of the term, and the „ Cwrt-not knowing bis decease had decided upon the ca
Weston v. City Council of Charleston
Plowden Weston and others, Plaintiffs in error vs. The City Council of Charleston, Defendants. A tax imposed by a law of any state of the United States, or under the authority of sudh. a law, o.n stock issued for loans made to. the United S
Southwick v. Postmaster General of the United States
Solomon Southwick, Spencer Stanford, and John Van Ness Gates, Plaintiffs in error vs. The Postmaster General of the United States. A district court .of the United States,-performing the appropriate duty of a district court, is not-sitting a
Reynolds v. M'Arthur
John Reynolds, Tenant the United States, Plaintiff vs. Duncan M’Arthur, Defendant. rhe lands north west of the river Ohio, between the- rivers Scioto and Little Miami, lying west of Ludlow's tine, east of Roberts’s line and south of the Ind
Satterlee v. Matthewson
John F. Satterlee, Plaintiff in error vs. Elizabeth Matthewson, Defendant in error. S. and M. held land jn Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, in common, under a Connecticut title. A division of the land was-made between them, and-S. became the t
Dandridge v. Washington's Executors
John Dandridge, Appellant vs. Martha Washington’s Executors, Appellees. The testatrix directed that the interest of certain -funds should be applied “ to the proper education’’ pf certain persons her nephews, “ so that they may be severally
Sundry Goods, Wares & Merchandises v. United States
Sundry Goods, Wares and Merchandises, The America Fur Company, Claimants, Plaintiffs in error vs. The United States, Defendants in error. Whatever an-agent does or says in reference to the.business in' which he is at ■ the time employed, an
Campbell's Executors v. Pratt
William Campbell’s Executors, appellants vs. Pratt, Francis and other, appellees. The Court refused to reverse , the decree-of the circuit court of .the county of Washington, although an error had been committed in proceeding under the mand
President of the Bank of the United States v. Weisiger
The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, Appellants vs. Daniel Weisiger, Appellee. This Court has decided that a suit could be maintained in equity, by the holder" of an /indorsed note, against a remote indorse
President of the Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley
The President, Directors and Company of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Plaintiffs in error vs. John Ashley and John Ella, Defendants. The declaration purported to count upon sixty-eight bills'of the bank of the commonwealth of Kentucky, and
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.