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
1864 Cases
62 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
Gordon v. United States
GORDON v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. Decided December Term, 1864. This cause was submitted on the 18th December, 1863. On the 4th of April, 1864, the court ordered it to be argued on the second day of the following Dece
Ex parte Fleming
Ex parte Fleming. A party asking this coürt for a mandamus to an inferior court to make a rule on one of its ministerial officers, as the marshal, must show clearly his interest in the matter which he presents as' the ground of his applicat
Lowber v. Bangs
Lowber v. Bangs. A stipulation in a charter-party that the chartered vessel, then in distant seas, would proceed from one port named (where it was expected that she would he) to another port named (where the charterer meant to load her), “w
Fossat Case
The Fossat or Quicksilver Mine Case. 1. An appeal lies to this court from a decree of the District Court for California, in a proceeding under the act of 14th of June, 1860 (12 Sta- ■ tutes at Large, 33), commonly called the Survey Law. 2.
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co.
Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company. 1. Where a bill in equity is necessary to have a construction of the orders, decrees, and acts made or done by a Federal court, the bill is properly filed in such Federal court as distinguished from an
Hogan v. Page
Hogan v. Page. 1. A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made to an original grantee or Ms “legal representatives,” embraces representatives of such .grantee by contract, as well as by operation of law; leaving the question
Read v. Bowman
Read v. Bowman. 1. A declaration that a certain improvement, containing in reality one principal and three distinct minor improvements, was patented on a day named, is supported by evidence that four patents — reissues—were subsequently gra
United States v. Pacheco
United States v. Pacheco. 1. When the boundaries designated in a decree of the District Court, confirming a claim to land under a Mexican grant in California, embrace a greater tract than the quantity confirmed, the grantees have the right
Sutter Case
The Sutter Case. V. On the 18th of June, 1841, Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of California, issued to John A. Sutter, for himself and colonists, a grant ' of land designated as New Helvetia, of the extent of eleven squaro leagues, as exhi
Gordon v. United States
Gordon v. United States. M o appeal lies to this court from the Court of Claims.
The Morning Light
The Morning Light. 1. A vessel astern of another cannot be held in fault for not complying with the rule which obliges the rear vessel to' keep out of the way of one ahead, when it is so darK that the latter vessel cannot be seen by the for
The Ann Caroline
The Ann Caroline. 1. The ordinary and settled rule of navigation, that when two vessels are approaching each other on opposite tacks, hoth having the wind free, the one on the larboard side shall give way and pass to the right, does not app
United States v. Stone
United States v. Stone. 1. The United States may properly proceed by bill in equity to have a judicial decree of nullity and an order of cancellation of a patent issued by itself, ignorantly or in mistake, for lands reserved from sale by la
Milwaukie & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter
Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company and Fleming, Appellants, v. Soutter, Survivor. 1. Tnough a court below is bound to follow the instructions given to it by a mandate from this, yet where a mandate has plainly been framed, as regards
Levy Court v. Coroner
Levy Court v. Coroner. 1. The Levy Court of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, if not a corporation in the full sense of the term, is a quasi corporation; and can sue and be sued in regard to any matter in which, by law, it has
Kutter v. Smith
Kutter v. Smith. 1. The law imposes no obligations on a landlord to pay the tenant for buildings erected on demised premises. The innovation on the common law rule that all buildings become part of the freehold, has extended no further than
The Andromeda
The Andromeda. 1 A vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, under circumstances of suspicion, — spoliation of papers in tlic moment of capture being one of them as regarded the cargo, and a former enemy owner remaining in possession as
The Baigorry
The Baigorry. 1. The blockade of the coast of Louisiana, as established there, as on the rest of the coast of the Southern States generally, by President Lincoln’s proclamation of 19th April, 1861; was not terminated by the capture of the f
Steamship Co. v. Joliffe
Steamship Company v. Joliffe. 1. When a right has arisen upon a contract, or a transaction .in the nature of a contract authorized by statute, and has been so far perfected thdt nothing remains to be done by the party asserting it, the repe
United States v. Billing
United States v. Billing. 1. The doctrine of United. States v. Halleck (1 Wallace, 439), that the decrees of the District Court on California land surveys under the acts of Congress are final, not only as to the questions of title, hut as t
Milwaukie & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter
Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company and Fleming, Appellants, v. Soutter, Survivor. An order of the Circuit Court, on a hill to foreclose a mortgage, ascertaining — in intended execution of a mandate from this court — the amount of inte
Tobey v. Leonards
Tobey v. Leonards. 1. Positive statements in an answer to a bill inequity — tbe answer being responsive to tbe bill — are not to be overcome, except by more testimony than that of one witness; but by such superior testimony they may be over
Mrs. Alexander's Cotton
Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton. 1. The principle, that personal dispositions of the individual inhabitants of enemy territory as distinguished from those of the enemy people generally, cannot, in questions of capture, bo inquired into, applies in
Albany Bridge Case
Albany Bridge Case.
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.