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
1861 Cases
73 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
Haussknecht v. Claypool
Haussknecht vs. Claypool et al. 1. The rules of evidence prescribed by the laws of a State are rules of decision for the United States courts while sitting within the limits of such State, within the meaning and subject to the exceptions co
Vance v. Campbell
Vance vs. Campbell et al. 1. Where a patentee, suing for an infringement of his patent,' declares upon a combination of elements which- he asserts constitute the novelty of his invention, he cannot, in his proofs, abandon a. part of such co
Cleveland v. Chamberlain
Cleveland vs. Chamberlain. 1. If it be made to appear, in the case of an appeal pending in this court, that tbe appellant has purchased and taken an assignment of all the appellee’s interest in the decree appealed from, the appeal will be d
The Ship Marcellus
The Ship Marcellus—Baxter, Claimant; Camp, Libellant. 1 In a case, of collision between two sea-going vessels, where the only-question proposed by the pleadings is one of fact, where there is , much discrepancy between the witnesses as to e
Woods v. Lawrence County
Woods vs. Lawrence County. 1. Where the charter of a railroad company authorizes - the counties “ through which it may pass ” to subscribe to its stock, a county lying between thé two 'termini of the road'may subscribe without waiting until
Rice v. Railroad Co.
Rice vs. Railroad Company. 1. If Congress pass an' act granting public lands to a Territory to aid in making a railroad, and if, by tbe true- construction of tbe act, tbe Territory acquired any beneficial interest in the lands as eontradis-
Crews v. Burcham
Crews et al. vs. Burcham et al. 1. Where a treaty-with an Indian tribe reserves a certain, quantity of ■ land, to be afterwards selected by the President, and patented to .an individual of the tribe, such reservation creates an equitable es
Farnet v. Towle
Farnet vs. Towle. 1. In a case where an alleged violation of-the Constitution of the United States is the ground of error, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, unless the point presented by the assignment and joinder was raised and decide
Clagett v. Kilbourne
Clagett vs. Kilbourne. 1. A joint stock company formed for the purpose of buying arid selling lands is a partnership. 2i The separate creditor of a member of an association dealing in lands has the same rights, and no others, against his de
Singleton v. Touchard
Singleton vs. Touchard. 1.. Where a plaintiff in ejectment claimed under a Mexican title, confirmed and patented according to the act of 1851, the defendant cannot oppose to it another Mexican title not finally confirmed, but pending in the
United States v. Covilland
United States vs. Covilland et al. 1. A confirmation of a Mexican land title in a proceeding conducted in oo name of the original grantee is binding upon the United States, and upon all the assignees of the original grantee. 2. When a surve
Laflin v. Herrington
Laflin vs. Herrington et al. The'sheriff sold'land under an’execution against the representatives of the deceased • owner, the heirs having. a right to redeem in one year. The agent of the purchaser, within the year, assigned the certificat
Harkness v. Underhill
Harkness & Wife vs. Underhill. 1.. A fraudulent entry of public land allowed by a register and receiver, upon false proofs of settlement, occupancy and housekeeping, may be set aside and vacated by the Commissioner of the General Land Offic
Farni v. Tesson
Farni vs. Tesson. 1. .Where a contract is joint, and not several, all the obligees who are alive must be joined as plaintiffs. 2. If one of the joint obligees be dead, a suggestion of that fact is suffi-. cient to show a right to sue in the
United States v. Neleigh
The United States vs. Robert B. Neleigh. 1. A paper purporting to be a grant of land in California first produced from the custody of a claimant after the war, and unsustained by any record evidence, will not be held valid by this court. 2.
Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Wheeler
Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company vs. Wheeler. 1. A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and can-have no legal existence beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which it is created. . It must dwell in th
United States v. Vallejo
The United States vs. Vallejo. 1. A claim for land in California admitted by tbe United States to be regular and genuine confirmed to tbe proper owner, (the original ■grantee or his assigns,) though the nonjinal claimant be one who derives
Moffitt v. Garr
Moffitt vs. Garr et al. 1. The surrender of a patent-under the 13th section of the-aet of July ‘, 1836, in judgment of law, extinguishes it — is a legal cancellation of it, and no right can afterwards be asserted upon it. 2. Suits pending f
Pratt v. Fitzhugh
Pratt vs. Fitzhugh et al. 1. The right of a party to a writ of error from this court, under the 22d section of the judiciary act, is expressly confined to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars ex
United States v. Wilson
United States vs. John Wilson. 1. A grant by Pio Pico,- tbe last Mexican Governor of California, dated on the’ 10th of July, lo46, being after the conquest of the country, adds nothing to the strength or justice of a claim set up to the lan
Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house
Attorney General vs. Federal Street Meeting-house. 1. This court has no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of a State court merély on the ground that the defendant is a body politic, incorporated by an act of the State Legislature. 2. T
Rogers v. Law
Rogers vs. Law. 1. A claim for money lent where no demand for payment was made of the borrower in his lifetime against his executors until thirty-three years after the date of the loan, is properly rejected by a court of . equity on distrib
United States v. Knight's Adm'r
United States vs. Knight’s Adm’r. 1. A complete espediente in a land title'according to the laws and customs of-Mexico consists of. a petition with deseño annexed, order of reference, decree of concession, and copy of the grant. 2. Where th
Johnston v. Jones
Johnston vs. Jones et al. I A bill of exceptions should contain only so much of the evidence as is necessary to present the legal question raised. When more than this is inserted in the bill it is an irregularity to be condemned as a depart
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.