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
1845 Cases
49 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
United States v. King
The United States, Plaintiff in error, v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, Defendants. The certificate of survey alleged to have been given by Trudeau, on the 14th of June, 1797, and brought forward to sustain a grant to the Marquis de Mai-
Winston v. United States
Thomas B. Winston v. The United States. Where the matter in dispute is below the amount necessary to give jurisdiction to this court, the writ of error must be-dismissed, on motion. Nelson (attorney-general) moved to dismiss this case for w
Thomas Wilson & Co. v. Smith
Thomas Wilson and Company, Plaintiffs, v. Horace Smith, Defendant. Whenever, .by express agreement of the parties, a sub-agent is to be employed by an agent to receive money1 for the principal; or where an authority to do so may fairly be-i
Lessee of Hickey v. Stewart
Lessee of Philip Hickey et al., Plaintiff in error, v. James A. Stewart et al. A defendant .in ejectment cannot protect himself by setting up the record in a prior chancery suit between the same parties7by which the plaintiff in the ejectmé
Neil, Moore & Co. v. State
Neil, Moore & Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The State of Ohio, Defendant. Under the acts of Congres^_and of the State of Ohio, relating to the surrender and - acceptance of the •Cumberland road, a toll charged upon passengers travel-ling
McFarland v. Gwin
William H. McFarland v. William M. Gwin, (late Marshal.) A marshal is not authorized by law to receive any thing, in discharge of an. execution, but gold’and silver, unless the plaintiff authorizes him to receive something else. • The case
Lessee of Gantly v. Ewing
Lessee of Daniel W. Gantly et al., Plaintiff, v. William G. and George W. Ewing, Defendants. A law of the state of Indiana? directing “that r eat and personal estate, taken in execution, shall sell, for the best price the same will bring at
McDonogh v. Millaudon
John McDonogh, Plaintiff in error, v. Laurent Millaudon and others, Defendants. The treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States recognised complete grants, issued anterior to the cession, and a decision of a state court against
Brockett v. Brockett
Robert Brockett et al., Appellants, v. William Brockett et al., Defendants. When an issue is directed by a court of chancery, to be .tried by a court of law, and in the course of the trial at law, questions are raised and bills of exception
Lessee of Clymer v. Dawkins
Lessee of George Clymer et al., Plaintiff in error, v. George Dawkins et al., Defendants in error. A court is not bound to give (instructions to the jury in the terms required by either party; it is sufficient if so much thereof are giren a
Lessee of Brown v. Clements
Lessee of William L. Brown and Wife, Plaintiff in error, v. Joseph Clements and Jonathan Hunt, Defendants in error. ' Under the acts of Congress, providing for the subdivision of the public lands, and the instructions of the secretary of th
Daviess v. Fairbairn
W. and D. H. Daviess et al., Plaintiffs in error, v. John H. Fairbairn et al., Heirs of Mary E. Fairbairn, deceased, Defendants in error. In affirmative statutes, ?uch parts of the prior as may he incorporated into the subsequent statute, a
Price ex rel. Gaulley v. Sessions
Llewellyn Price, Jun., for the use of Daniel W. Gaulley, Plaintiff in error, v. Martha A. Sessions. Where a testator devised certain property to his infant daughter, to he delivered over to her when she should arrive at-1 the age of eightee
United States v. Marvin
The United States, appellants, v. William Marvin. The act of .the 26th of May, 1830, providing for the final settlement of land claims in Florida, must be construed to contain the same limitation of time within which claims were to be prese
Chaires ex rel. Chaires v. United States
Joseph Chaires, executor of Benjamin Chaires, deceased, and Peter Miranda and Gad Humphreys, appellants, v. The United States. Where this court has affirmed the title to lands in Florida, and referred, in its decree, to a particular survey,
Permoli v. Municipality No. 1
Bernard Permoli, Plaintiff in error, v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, Defendant in error. This court has not jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the Judiciary-Act; of ¿ .question whether an ordinance of the corporate au
United States v. Prescott
The United States, Plaintiffs, v. Eli S. Prescott et al., Defendants. The felonious faking and carrying away the public pioneys in the custody óf a receiver of public moneys, without -any fault or'negligence on his part, does not discharge
Bonnafee v. Williams
Augustus and Edward Bonnafee, partners under the name and style of Bonnafee & Co., Plaintiffs in error, v. Ira E. Williams, Charles S. Spann and B. H. Cook, Defendants in error. Tbe Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction where
Andrews v. Wall
James B. Andrews, Appellant, v. William H. Wall and John H. Geiger, Defendants. An agreement of consortship between the masters of two vessels engaged in the business known by the name.of wrecking, is a contract capable of being enforced in
United States v. Freeman
The United States, Plaintiffs, v. William H. Freeman. Statutes in pari materia should be taken into consideration in construing a law. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute be .within'the reason of a former statute, it.sha!l be taken
Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad
James Stimpson, Plaintiff in Error, v. West Chester Railroad Company. The 38th. rule of court forbids the insertion of the whole of the charge of the court to the jury in a general bill of exceptions, but requires that the part excepted to
United States v. Hodge
United States v. Andrew Hodge. If the citation be signed by the clerk, and not by a judge of the Circuit Court, or a justice of the Supréme'Court, the case will, on motion, be dismissed.
Camden v. Doremus
John B. Camden, Plaintiff in error, v. Thomas C. Doremus, Cornelius R. Suydam, James Suydam, and John M. Nixon, Defendants in error. Where a .general.objection is made, in the court below, to the reception of testimony, without' stating the
Black v. J. W. Zacharie & Co.
Francis C. Black and James Chapman, Plaintiffs in error, v. J. W. Zacharie & Co., Defendants. . When a creditor, residing in Louisiana, drew hills of exchange upon his debtor, residing in South Carolina, which hills were negotiated to a thi
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.