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
1863 Cases
78 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
Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukie Railroad
Bronson et al. v. La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company et al. 1. Stockholders of a corporation, who have been allowed to put in answers in the name of a corporation, cannot be regarded as answering for the corporation itself. In a speci
Brooks v. Martin
Brooks v. Martin. 1. After a partnership contract confessedly against public policy has been carried out, and money contributed by one of the partners has passed ■ into other forms, — the remits of the contemplated operation completed,— a p
United States v. Jones
United States v. Carey Jones. The Governor of California had no power, on the 18th May, 1846, either under the colonization law of August 18, 1824, and the regulations of November 21, 1828, nor yet under the despatch of March 10,' 1846, fro
United States v. Workman
United States v. Workman et al. The Governor of California bad no power, on tbe 8tb June, 1846, either under the colonization law of August 18, 1824, and the regulations of November 21,1828, nor yet under the despatch of March 10,1846, from
Romero v. United States
Romero v. United States. 1. The Mexican archives are public records, which this court has a right to consult, though not made formal proof by being put in evidence below. 2. Where there is no record evidence of the actual grant under a Mexi
United States v. Estudillo
United States v. Estudillo. An appeal of a case originating below under the statute of June 14,1860, relating to surveys of Mexican grants in California, and in which the appellants appear on the record as The United States, simply (no inte
United States v. Morillo
United States v. Morillo. 1. When the government does not claim land in California as public land, this court will not entertain jurisdiction of an appeal by the United States from a District Court there under the act of 3d March, 1851, for
Houghton v. Jones
Houghton v. Jones. 1. This court will refuse to consider objections to the documentary evidence of title produced on the trial of an action of ejectment, unless they are presented in the first instance to the court below, if they are of a k
United States v. Gomez
United States v. Gomez. /Vhere the question was, whether a party should be heard on appeal, and the effect of refusal to hear him would have left in full force a decree that the court was “not prepared to sanction,” it was held: j.. That an
Parker v. Phetteplace
Parker v. Phetteplace et al. A question of fact arising upon a bill to set aside conveyances as made in fraud of creditors, in which, though the court agreed that “there was ground of suspicion,” it gives weight to an answer positively deny
Resolute & Northerner
Resolute and Northerner. The waters of Puget’s Sound, in Washington Territory, were not within the Rules and Regulations adopted 17th October, 1857, of the Supervising Inspectors, appointed under tho act of Congress Of 30th August, 1852, to
White v. United States
White v. United States. Where there is no archive evidence of a California grant, and its absence is unaccounted for, and there has been no such possession as raises an equity in behalf of the party, and especially where, in addition, the e
United States v. Vallejo
United States v. Vallejo. Asa general rule a warrant for public land should be so located and surveyed that the surplus left to the United States shall be in one connected piece. But a large discretion must be left in this class of cases to
Blossom v. Milwaukee, &c., Railroad
Blossom v. The Milwaukee, &c., Railroad Company. A bidder at a marshal’s sale made on foreclosure of a mortgage in a Federal court below, may, by his bid, though no party to the suit originally, so far be made a party to the proceedings in
Rogers v. The Marshal
Rogers v. The Marshal. 1. The marshal is not responsible on his official bond for the act of his deputy in discharging sureties on a replevin bond, in any case where the attorney of the plaintiff in that suit, though he gave no direct and p
Beaver v. Taylor
Beaver v. Taylor. 1. Under the first section of the Statute of Limitations of March 2, 1839, of Illinois, entitled “An act to quiet possessions and confirm titles to land,” — which section gives title to persons in “actual possession of lan
Gray v. Brignardello
Gray v. Brignardello. Brignardello v. Gray. 1. The ancient doctrine that all rights acquired under a judicial sale made while a decree is in force and unreversed will be protected, is a doctrine of extensive application. It prevails in Cali
Spain v. Hamilton's Administrator
Spain v. Hamilton’s Administrator. ]. A transfer by a party of his “right and claim for any commission or compensation for services rendered, or to be rendered to any body corporate," in a class of claims mentioned generally in the transfer
Pomeroy's Lessee v. State Bank of Indiana
Pomeroy’s Lessee v. The State Bank of Indiana. 1. No “exception” lies to overruling amotion for anew trial, nor for entering judgment. 2. The entries on a judge’s minutes, the memoranda of an exception taken, are not themselves bills of exc
Rodrigues v. United States
Rodrigues v. United States. A question of fact, to wit, of the location of survey in a previously confirmed Mexican grant; prior to the examination and decision of which, the court sets forth the difficulties which attend any satisfactory d
Same v. Same
Same v. Same. No. 231. The “Boyden machine” does not infringe the patent of A. B. Taylor. The practice of reissuing patents for the purpose of interpolating abstract generalizations, so as to cover subsequent inventions made by others, is c
Burr v. Duryee
Burr v. Duryee. 1. The practice of surrendering valid patents, and of granting reissues thereon in cases where the original patent was neither inoperative nor invalid, and where the specification was neither defective nor insufficient — the
Wheeler v. Sage
Wheeler v. Sage. Where a firm, whose business was “a general produce business,” owned a mortgage or. real estate, which real estate itself the firm was desirous to purchase aader tho mortgage, and intrusted .the subject generally to one of
Roosevelt v. Meyer
Roosevelt v. Meyer. Where a certificate, coming up with the record from the highest court of law or equity of a State, certifies only that on the “ hearing” of the case a party “ relied upon” such and such provisions of the Constitution 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.