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
1858 Cases
68 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
Combs v. Hodge
Leslie Combs, Complainant and Appellant, v. John L. Hodge, Administrator of Andrew Hodge, deceased, William L. Hodge, and James Love. The pleadings in another suit, where the parties wpré different, and the petition and answer signed by cou
Martin v. Imhsen
Francis Martin, Administrator of Dennis T. Donovan, deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Christian Imhsen. In Pennsylvania, where a transfer of certain accounts was made, the assignee had only an equitable interest, and could not sue in his own
Porter v. Foley
James D. Porter et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Bushrod W. Foley. This'court has already decided at the present term (see page Í95 of this volume) that a writ of error made returnable on- the third Monday in January, and the defendant in er
Richmond v. City of Milwaukie
Dean Richmond, Appellant, v. The City of Milwaukie and Ferdinand Kuehn. fijfter a ease has been beard and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it ’did not appear that tbe valué of the property in’ controversy exceeded two thousand do
Mason v. Gamble
John T. Mason, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joseph C. Gamble and David Gamble. The act of Congress passed on the 3d of May, 1844,_ (5 Stat. at L., 658,) authorizes a writ of error, at the instance of either party, upon a final judgment in & Circu
Ballance v. Forsyth
Charles Ballance, Appellant, v. Robert Forsyth, Luciene Dumain, and Antoine R. Bouis. The cpurt again decides that consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court where the law does not give it; .but leave is granted to the plaint
Montgomery v. Anderson
Joseph E. Montgomery et al., Claimants of the Steamer Republic, &c., Appellants, v. John J. Anderson et al. Where the District Court of the United States, sitting in admiralty, decreed that a sum of money was due, but the amount to be paid
New York & Liverpool United States Mail Steamship Co. v. Rumball
The New York and Liverpool United States Mail Steamship Company, Claimants of the Steamship Pacific, her Tackle, &c., Appellants, v. Otis P. Rumball, Libellant. In a collision between a sailing vessel and a steamer, which took place at sea,
New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Asa Cutler, John Underhill, Jun., and Arza Underhill, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Edgar C. Dibble, County Judge of Genesee County. 'A statute of the State of New York, making it unlawful for any pers
United States v. City Bank
The United States, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City Bank of Columbus. Where the cashier of a bank wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, saying that the bearer of the letter was authorized to contract for the transfer of money from New Yor
McKinlay v. Morrish
Finlay McKinlay and Alexander Garriock, composing the firm of McKinlay, Garriock, & Co., Appellants, v. William Morrish, master and claimant of the ship Pons Aelii, on behalf of Robert and Edward Formby, owners of said ship. The rules of pl
Thomas v. Lawson
Mary Ann Thomas, Plaintiff in Error, v. Eliza Lawson and Others, heirs at law of James Lawson, deceased, by George A. Gallagher, their Guardian ad litem. Where a deed was objected to in the Circuit Court on tbe ground of fraud, but no speci
Kendall v. Winsor
George Kendall, Leander M. Ware, and George L. Jencks, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Joseph S. Winsor. The ultimate object of the patent laws being to benefit the public by the use of the invention after the temporary monopoly shall have expired,
Brown v. Huger
Jacob B. Brown, Jacob Nisswaner, Fontaine Beckham, John C. Unseld, and George W. Moler, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Benjamin Huger. .Where there had been hn original entry for. land made in the office of the Lord Proprietor of the Northern Neck
Morehouse v. Phelps
Dickerson B. Morehouse, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Phelps. By the acts of Congress passed in 1829, (4 Stat. at L., 334,) and 1836, (5 Stat. at L., 79,) commissioners were to be appointed to hear and determine all . claims to lots of
Lownsdale v. Parrish
Daniel H. Lownsdale and others, Appellants, v. Josiah L. Parrish. Congress passed no law in any wise affecting title to lands in the Territory of t Oregon until September, 1850; and therefore where a controversy arose, in July, 1850, relati
Ford v. John S.
Benjamin Ford, Plaintiff in Error, v. John S. and Herman Williams. Where a contract is made by an agent, the principal whom he represents may maintain an action upon it .in his own name, although the name of the principal was not disclosed
Hill v. Smith
Henry Hill, Plaintiff in Error, v. Caleb B. Smith and others. Where it appeared from the record that a party sold land to a railroad company, the price of which was paid in the stock of the company, guarantied by certain persons to be at pa
Doe ex dem. Dickins v. Mahana
John Doe, ex dem. Francis A. Dickins, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo Mahana. 'In 1792; Congress granted .to certain, persons a tract of land in Ohio, upon the condition that they would lay off lots of an hundred acres each to actual settlers
Poorman v. Woodward
Daniel Poorman and others v. William A. Woodward and William C. Dusenberry, late partners under the firm of Woodward & Dusenberry. Where certain persons gave a joint and several note for the purpose of raising money, and their agent receive
Pemberton v. Lockett
John Pemberton, Liquidator of the Merchants’ Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Edward Lockett, James G. Berret, and Henry D. Johnson. .An agreement between a claimant and certain persons in Washington, whereby the claimant agreed to allow’ t
Charles Belcher & Co. v. Lawrason
Charles Belcher and Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George C. Lawrason, Collector of the Port of New Orleans. The eighth section of the act of Congress, passed in 1846, (9 Stat. at L., 42,) exacting a penal dnty of twenty per cent, when th
Maguire v. Card
Thomas Maguire, Claimant of the Steamer Goliah, Appellant, v. Stephen Card, Libellant. As this court has decided at the present term (see the preceding case of Allen v. ■ Newberry) that a contract of affreightment between ports and places w
Allen v. Newberry
Rufus Allen and others, Libellants and Appellants, v. Henry L. Newberry, Claimant of the Steamboat Fashion, &c. The act of Congress passed on the 26th of February, 1845, (5 Stat. at L., 726,) confines the admiralty jurisdiction of the Feder
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.