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
1857 Cases
72 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. Fossat
The United States, Appellants, v. Charles Fossat. Where a petitioner files a claim to land in California before the board of commissioners created by Congress, the intervention of rival claimants is a practice not to be encouraged. Where th
McCormick v. Talcott
Cyrus H. McCormick, Appellant, v. Waite Talcott, Ralph Emmerson, Jesse Blinn, and Sylvester Talcott, Survivors of John H. Manny. The reaping machines made by Manny do not infringe McCormick’s patent, either . as to the divider, the manner i
People's Ferry Co. v. Beers
The People’s Ferry Company of Boston, Claimants of the Steamboat Jefferson, Appellants, v. Joseph Beers and David Warner, Assignees of B. C. Terry. The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States does not extend to cases where
Silsby v. Foote
Horace C. Silsby, Washburn Race, Abel Downs, Henry Henion, and Edward Mynderse, Appellants, v. Elisha Foote. Foote’s patent declared good; for the combination of machinery used in “the application of the expansive and contracting power of a
Gazzam v. Lessee of Phillips
Charles W. Gazzam, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lessee of Elam Phillips and Mary his wife, and Ashbey W. Etheridge. The décision of this court in the case of Brown v. Clements (3 How., 650) reviewed and' controlled. ' ... The quantity of land gra
Goodman v. Simonds
Timothy S. Goodman, Plaintiff in Error, v. John Simonds. Where an accepted and endorsed bill of-exchange was placed by the drawer as collateral security for his own debt in the hands of his creditor, and when the creditor came to sue the ac
Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia
Thomas Jackson, William Higdon, and Archibald Olds, owners of the Steamboat Wetumpka, Libellants and Appellants, v. The Steamboat Magnolia, her tackle, &c., William F. James, master, &c. The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the Unite
Silsby v. Foote
Horace C. Silsby et al., Appellants, v. Elisha Foote. Where an appeal from a decree is taken within ten days from the rendition of the decree, it is in time to operate as a supersedeas; and so, also, if taken within ten days after the decre
Mussina v. Cavazos
Ex parte in the matter of Jacob Mussina and Angela Garcia Lafon de Tarneva, et al. Appellants, v. Rafael Garcia Cavazos and wife, et al. A rule laid upon the district judge of the State of Texas, to show cause why a mandamus should not be i
Spencer v. Lapsley
Eliphas Spencer, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Lapsley. The judge of the District Court of the United States in Texas had power to order the record of a suit in which he was interested to be transmitted to the Circuit Court of the United S
United States v. De Pacheco
The United States, Appellant, v. Juana S. De Pacheco. The United States, Appellant, v. Samuel J. Hensley. The United States, Appellant, v. John Bidwell. The United States, Appellant, v. Antonio Sunot et al. As the act of Congress passed on
Hemmenway v. Fisher
Augustus Hemmenway, Claimant of the Ship Independence, v. William B. Fisher. Where a judgment of the Circuit Court, sitting in admiralty, was affirmed here by a divided court, interest was not to be calculated upon the judgment. The eightee
United States v. Breitling
The United States, Plaintiff in Error, v. Gotlieb Breitling. The Circuit Court of the United States in Alabama, by a general rule, adopted the practice of the State courts, which is regulated by a statute providing that no bill of exception
White v. Burnley
Samuel A. White, William M. Cooke, Chambers Etler, John H. Baldwin, Henry J. Huck, as Administrator of Herman H. Rodgers, and in his own right, John P. O’Brien, Oliver H. Stapp, and Thomas Rooke, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Albert T. Burnley. I
Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd
The Covington Drawbridge Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Alexander O. Shepherd, Elijah F. Gillan, James Davidson, Samuel McClure Samuel Peters, and George Willard. An averment, in pleading, that the Covington Drawbridge Company were citize
McGavock v. Woodlief
John McGavock, Plaintiff in Error, v. Peter W. Woodlief. A broker who negotiates the sale of an estate is not entitled to his commission until he finds a purchaser in a situation and ready and willing to complete the purchase on the terms a
Payne v. Niles
Jacob U. Payne, J. P. Harrison, and George W. Huntingdon, commercial partners, under the name and firm of Payne & Harrison, Intervenors, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Jonathan J. Niles, James M. Niles, Leander H. Corey, and Stephen Allen, partner
Day v. Union India Rubber Co.
Horace H. Day, Appellant, v. The Union India Rubber Company. The party defendants in the present suit have as much right to manufacture various articles of India rubber under Chaffee’s patent, as the licensees in the case of Hartshorn v. Da
Chaffee v. Hayward
Edwin M. Chaffee, Trustee of Horace H. Day, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel Hayward. Horace H. Day, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nathaniel Hayward. By the judiciary act of 1789, no civil suit shall be brought against an inhabitant of the United
Carroll v. Dorsey
Jane Carroll, Maria C. Fitzhugh, et al., Devisees of Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nicholas Dorsey, Noah Dorsey, Achsah Dorsey, Tristam S. Dorsey, heirs at law of Alfred R. Dowson, deceased. Although an irregularity
Dean v. Mason
William B. Dean, Appellant, v. Nathan Mason et al. In suits for the infringement of a patent right, the rule of dam.' es is the amount which the infringer actually realized in profits, not what he night have made hf reasonable diligence. Af
Thompson v. Selden
Gilbert L. Thompson, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Selden, John Withers, Robert W. Latham, and Lawrence P. Bayne, doing business under the firm of Selden, Withers, & Company. The fifteenth section of the judiciary act of 1789 authorizes th
Fisher v. Haldeman
Isaac M. Fisher, Appellant, v. John Haldeman, Jacob S. Haldeman, Richard J. Haldeman, and Robert J. Ross, Executors of Jacob Haldeman, deceased, and Thomas Chambers, Administrator de bonis non of Thomas Duncan, deceased. By the laws of Penn
Leitensdorfer v. Webb
Eugene Leitensdorfer and Joab Houghton, Plaintiffs in Error, v. James J. Webb. When New Mexico was conquered by the United States, it was only the allegiance of the people that was changed; their relation to each other, and their-rights of
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.