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
1849 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
Cutler v. Rae
Pliny Cutler, Appellant, v. William A. Rae. (7 Howard, 729-738.)
United States v. King
The United States, Plaintiffs in error, v. Richard King and Daniel W. Coxe, Defendants. The case of the United States v. King ánd Coxe (3 Howard, 773) reviewed. According to the-practice of Louisiana, where cases are carried to an appellate
Stearns v. Page
George B. Stearns, Administrator de bonis non of John O. Page, Appellant, v. Rufus R. Page. The general rules stated which govern, a court of equity in opening accounts and sustaining claims which are barred by the statute of limitations. G
Nesmith v. Sheldon
Jonathan W. Nesmith and Thomas Nesmith, Complainants, v. Thomas C. Sheldon, Horace H. Comstock, David French, William E. Peters, James Forton, Atta E. Mather, Henry B. Holbrook, Samuel P. Mead, Francis E. Eldred, Phebe Ann Dean, Cullen Brow
Backus v. Gould
Eleazer F. Backus, Plaintiff in error, v. William Gould and David Banks, who sue as well for the United States as themselves. By the sixth section of the act of February ád, 1831, entitled “An act to amend the several acts respecting copyri
Lawrence v. Allen
Cornelius W. Lawrence, Plaintiff in error, v. Gilbert Allen and Samuel C. Paxton. By the fifth section, of the tariff act passed on the 30th of August, 1842, (5 Stat. at Large, 555,) a duty of thirty per cent, is imposed on “India-rubber oi
Van Rensselaer v. Watts's Executors
Jeremiah Van Rensselaer, Appellant, v. John Watts’s Executors. Mr. Blunt, of counsel for the appellant in this cause, moved he court to direct the clerk to docket the case ás of the time when, the transcript of the record was received by hi
Lewis v. Lewis
William Lewis, who sues for the Use of Nicholas Longworth, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Lewis, Administrator de bonis non of Moses Broadwell, deceased. By a law of the State of Illinois, passed in 1827, “every action of covenant shall be commenced
Neilson v. Lagow
Hall Neilson, Plaintiff in error, v. Wilson Lagow. Where, upon the trial of a casé in a State court, a party claims the land in dispute,. •' under an authority which he alleges has been exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury, in behalf
Udell v. Davidson
Grant B. Udell and Jacob Miller, Plaintiffs in error, v. Alexander B. Davidson. The act of 1838, (5 Stat. at Large, 251,) relating to preemption rights, provides, that “ before any person claiming the benefit of this law shall have a patent
Massingill v. Downs
W. and H. Massingill, Plaintiffs, v. A. C. Downs, Claimant. Where a judgment was obtained in the Circuit .Court of the United States for the District of'Mississippi in 1839, and in 1841 the State of Mississippi passed a law, requiring judgm
McDonald v. Hobson
William McDonald, Administrator of Duncan McArthur, deceased, Plaintiff in error, v. Matthew Hobson. Where the complainant and respondent in a suit in chancery entered into a mutual covenant, that, pending the.suit, they, would divide the m
Smith v. Hunter
Hezekiah Smith, Plaintiff in error, v. William Hunter, Treasurer of Butler County, James B. Cameron, Auditor of Butler County, and the President and Trustees of the Miami University. Where a complainant alleged that a school tax, which was
Cutler v. Rae
Pliny Cutler, Appellant, v. William A. Rae. Where a vessel was rim on shore by the captain in order to save the lives of those on board, and for the preservation of the cargo, by which act the vessel was totally lost, but the cargo saved an
Hardeman v. Harris
William Hardeman and Henry R. W. Hill, Complainants, v. Benjamin D. Harris. If an exception be taken to an answer in chancery upon the ¡pound that certain allegations in the bill are neither answered, admitted, nor denied, it becomes ne- ■
Townsend v. Jemison
Thomas Townsend, Plaintiff in error, v. Robert Jemison. ¡Although, as a general rule, all issues, whether of law or fact, ought to be disposed of iu some way by the court below, yet, under the. particular circumstances of this case, which p
Harris v. Wall
Benjamin D. Harris, Plaintiff in error, v. James D. Wall, The conditions under which a parly is permitted and a magistrate authorized to take a deposition de bene esse by the thirtieth section of the Judiciary Act are,— 1st That the witness
Jones v. Unite States
Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, Plaintiff in error, v. The Unite States. Where a running account is kept at the Post-Office Department between the United ■ States and a postmaster, in which all postages are charged to him, and credit is given for
State of Missouri v. Iowa
The State of Missouri, Complainant, v. The State of Iowa, Respondent. The State of Iowa, Complainant, v. The State of Missouri, Respondent.— Cross-Bill. The western and northern boundary-lines.of the State of Missouri, as-described in the f
United States v. Heirs of Boisdore
The United States, Appellants, v. The Heirs of Louis Boisdore. The meaning of the forty-third rule of this court is,.that, if a judgment'or decree in -the court below be rendered more than thirty days before the commencement of the term oft
Barnard v. Gibson
Frederick J. and Samuel W. Barnard and Henry Q. Hawley, Appellants, v. John Gibson. Where a decree in chancery refers th§ matters to a.master to ascertain the amount of damages, and in the mean time the bill is not dismissed, nor is there a
Sadler v. Hoover
William and Francis Sadler, Complainants, v. Thomas B. Hoover, Sylvanus Chambers, and Samuel H. Dinkins, Partners by the Style of Thomas B. Hoover and Company. Where an appeal from a Circuit Court, sitting in chancery, is brought up to this
Shawhan v. Wherritt
John L. Shawhan, Daniel Shawhan, George H. Perrin, Benjamin Beery, Catharine Snodgrass, and Isaac Miller, Appellants, v. Perry Wherritt, Assignee of the Bankrupt Estate of Benjamin Brandon. A decree of the District Court of the United State
Colby v. Ledden
Abraham Colby, Plaintiff in error, v. James Ledden. The decision of this court in the preceding case of Peck v. Jenness affirmed. This, like the preceding case of Peck v. Jenness, was brought up from the Superior Court of Judicature of the
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.