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
1866 Cases
134 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
The Moses Taylor
The Moses Taylor. 1. A contract for the transportation of passengers by a steamship on the ocean is a maritime contract, and there is no distinction in principle between it and a contract for the like transportation of merchandise. The same
Gilman v. Lockwood
Gilman v. Lockwood. Certificates of discharge granted under insolvent laws passed by a State cannot be pleaded in bar of an action brought by a citizen of another State in the courts of the United States, or of any other State than that whe
United States v. Quimby
United States v. Quimby. Split white-ash timber, chiefly designed to be used in the manufacturo of long shovel handles, the growth and product of the Province of Canada, and imported from there into the United States, were not free from dut
United States v. Hathaway
United States v. Hathaway. Staves for pipes, hogsheads, and other casks, the growth and produce of the province of Canada, imported in November, 1863, from Canada into the United States, were not free from duty under the reciprocity treaty
Barrows v. Kindred
Barrows v. Kindred. Although, when statute abolishing its fictitious forms places the action of ejectment on the same footing with other actions, as to the conclusiveness of the judgment, the court will give effect to the same; yet where a
Ex parte Garland
Ex Parte Garland. 1. The act of Congress of January 24th, 1865, providing that after its pas- , sage no person shall be admitted as an attorney and counsellor to the bar of the Supreme Court, and, after March 4th, 1865, to the bar of any Ci
Cummings v. Missouri
Cummings v. The State of Missouri. 1. Under the form of creating a qualification or attaching a condition, the States cannot in effect inflict a punishment for a past act which was not punishable at the time it was committed. 2. Deprivation
Larned v. Burlington
Larned v. Burlington. The doctrines of the preceding case affirmed. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa. Mr. Grant, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Ewing, contra.
Mitchell v. Burlington
Mitchell v. Burlington. 1. A provision in the charter of a city corporation authorizing it to borrow money for any public purpose, whenever, in the opinion of the Oity Council, it shall be expedient to exercise it, is a valid power. Rogers
Brown v. Bass
Brown v. Bass. 1. Brown Brothers & Co. bad filed a creditor’s bill against the Bank of Mississippi before haring obtained judgment at law, which, however, was obtained soon after the bill was filed. After this a receiver was appointed and p
Graham v. United States
Graham v. United States. 1. The Mexican law made a formal delivery of possession of real property granted essential, after tlie execution of the grant, for the investiture of the title. 2. The proceeding had upon such delivery — called, in
People v. Commissioners
People v. The Commissioners. 1. Shares in hanks, whether State hanks or those organized under the act of June 3d, 1864, “ to provide a national currency,” &c., are liable to taxation hy the State under certain limitations (set forth in sect
Mitchell v. St. Maxent's Lessee
Mitchell v. St. Maxent’s Lessee. 1. A writ of fieri facias, tested and issued after the death of the party against whom the judgment is recovered, is void, and confers no power on the ministerial officer to execute it. 2. The rule applies w
Hughes v. United States
Hughes v. United States 1. The equity of a preemption claimant of land under the laws of the United States who has complied with the conditions imposed by those laws, obtained his certificate by the payment of tb e purchase-money, and retai
Evans v. Patterson
Evans v. Patterson. 1. The court reproves the practice of making- bills of exception a sort of abstract or index to the history of the case, and so of obscuring its merits. 2. Where a party claiming land as owner, under the laws of Pennsylv
Rutherford v. Geddes
Rutherford v. Geddes. 1. Depositions cannot be used on the trial of a suit in admiralty, which were taken in another suit concerning the same subject-matter, where the party against whom they are offered was not a party to the suit in which
Witherspoon v. Duncan
Witherspoon v. Duncan. 1. The different States, as a general rule, have the right of determining the manner of levying and collecting taxes on private property within their •limits; and can declare that a tract of land shall he chargeable w
Lanfear v. Hunley
Lanfear v. Hunley. X. The act of Congress of August 10th, 1856, confirming claims in favor of Ambrose Lanfear, confirmed to Mm whatever he was entitled to by virtue of the original grant referred to in it, conceding that to have been valid.
Christy v. Pridgeon
Christy v. Pridgeon. 1. The Mexican colonization law of August 18th, 1824, though general to the Republic of Mexico, was, so far as it affected lands within the limits of Texas, after the independence of that country, a local law of the new
Mayor v. Sheffield
Mayor v. Sheffield. 1. Where a corporation is sued for an injury growing out of negligence of the corporate authoi'itics, in their care of the streets of the corporation, they cannot defend themselves on the ground that the formalities of t
Leftwitch v. Lecanu
Leftwitch v. Lecanu. 1. “Wien a paper which is to constitute a part of a hill of exceptions is not incorporated into the "body of the bill, it must he annexed to it, or so marked by letter, number, or other means of identification mentioned
United States v. Allsbury
United States v. Allsbury. If a judgment is obtained against a surety, the amount of it being fixed by a judgment previously obtained against his principal, the former judgment cannot be reversed on error as for an amount too small, though
United States v. Dashiel
United States v. Dashiel. 1. The loss of public money by a receiver and disburser of it, through felonious taking away, though without fault on his part, does not discharge him or his sureties from obligation on his official bond. 2. Whatev
Railroad Co. v. Rock
Railroad Company v. Rock. 1. In a ease brought here from a State court, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, the record must show that some one of the matters mentioned in that section was necessarily decided by the court, n
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.