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
1868 Cases
118 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
Reeside v. United States
Reeside v. United States. Under the act of 28th February, 1861, which authorizes the Postmaster-General to discontinue, under certain circumstances specified, the postal service on any route, a “ suspension” during the late rebellion at the
Stansbury v. United States
Stansbury v. United States. 1. The act of August'23d, 1842, declaring that no officer of the government drawing a fixed salary, shall receive additional compensation for any service, unless it is authorized by law, and a specific appropriat
Mills v. Smith
Mills v. Smith. 1. -Under the recording acts of Illinois, which enact that deeds shall take effect as against creditors and subsequent purchasers from the time that they are filed of record, it is necessary, in order to defeat.a subsequent
The Eagle
The Eagle. 1. Since the decision (A. D. 1851) in' the Genesee Chief (12 Howard, 443), which decided that admiralty jurisdiction was not limited in 'this country to tide waters, but extended to the lakes and the waters connecting them ; the
Dean v. Younell's Administrator
NOTE. At the same time with the foregoing case was decided another, as to its chief point, like it; an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia. It was the case of Dean v. Younell’s Administrator. A bill had been .
Thorington v. Smith
Thorington v. Smith. 1. A contract for the payment of Confederate States treasury notes, made between parties residing within the so-called Confederate States, can be enforced in the courts of the United States, the contract having been mad
Roland v. United States
Roland v. United States. A grant of land in California, purporting to have been made by Governor Pío Pico, on the.2d of May, 1846, and insufficient on the archive papers, decided not to be helped by papers produced by the claimant; these be
Texas v. White
Texas v. White et al. 1. The word State describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the. country,
Washington County v. Durant
Washington County v. Durant. Cases cannot be brought within the appellate jurisdiction of this court by agreement of parties, and .without an appeal allowed or writ/ of error served. TiiE'record showed that this cause had been brought here
Blitz v. Brown
Blitz v. Brown. A writ of error dismissed where the transcript contained only a blank form of a certificate• of ¡puthentication, without the seal of the court below or , the signature of its clerk. Leave was, however, granted to'the plaintl
James v. Bank
James v. Bank. Where there ia no bill of exceptions, and nothing upon which error can be 'assigned, the.regular practice is to affirm the judgments, not to dismiss In error to:the Circuit Court for Louisiana. The Bank of Mobile brought suit
Garrison v. United States
Garrison v. United States. An amendment, not very clear in its terms, to an original government con. . tract, was in this case interpreted against the interests of the government, the amendment having been suggested by one officer 'of the g
Whitely v. Swayne
Whitely v. Swayne. •1. Where a patent has been grante.d for improvements, which, after a full and fair trial, resulted in unsuccessful experiments, and have been finally abandoned, if any other person takes up the suojeet-of the improve- '
The Floyd Acceptances
The Floyd Acceptances. .1. The government of the United States has a right to use bills of exchange ' in conducting its fiscal operations, as it has the right to use any other appropriate means of accomplishing it? legitimate purposes. 2. W
The Nichols
The Nichols. 1. Sailing ships áre ‘‘meeting end on,”, within t'he meaning of the eleventh' article of the act of Congress of April 29, .1864, fixing “ Rulés and,Reg-, ulati-ons for Preventing Collisions on the Water,” when they are ap-, pro
White's Bank v. Smith
White’s Bank v. Smith. 1. Under the act of Congress of July 29th, 1850, enacting— “That no bill of sale, mortgage, hypothecation, or conveyance of any vessel, or part of any vessel, of the United States, shall bo valid against any person ot
The Belfast
The Belfast. 1. In all cases where a maritime lien arises, the original jurisdiction to enforce it by a proceeding in rem, is exclusive in the District Courts of the United States, as provided by the ninth section of the Judiciary Act of 17
Beloit v. Morgan
Beloit v. Morgan. 1. A judgment in favor of a bondholder upon certain municipal'bonds, part of a larger issue, against the town issuing them, is conclusive on a question of the validity of the issue on a'suit brought by the same creditor ■
Morgan v. Beloit
Morgan v. Beloit, City and Town. "Where the legislature creates a city, carving it out of a region previously a town only, and enacts that all bonds which had been previously issued by the town should be paid when the same fell due, by the
Morgan v. Town Clerk
Morgan v. Town Clerk. ■By the law, as settled in Wisconsin, a provision in a statute under which a ■ '>town issued its bonds to a railroad, that a tax requisite to pay the in-i' terest on these .bonds should be .levied by the■■ supervisor a
Agawam Co. v. Jordan
Agawam Company v. Jordan. 1. In a suit in chancery under a patent, evidence of prior knowledge or use of the thing patented is not admissible, unless the answer contains the names and places of residence of those alleged to have possessed a
United States v. Rosenburgh
United States v. Rosenburgh. This court cannot take cognizance, under the' Judiciary Act of 1802, of a division of opinion hetween the judges of the Circuit Court, upon a motion to quash an indictment. ‘ On certificate of division in opinio
Morris v. United States
Morris and Johnson v. United States. 1. .An information under the acts of August 6th, 1861, and July 17th, 1862, which presents only a case of the unlawful conversion of property to the use of the persons proceeded against, cannot be sustai
Railroad Co. v. Bradleys
Railroad Company v. Bradleys. 1. A decree ordering an injunction, previously granted to restrain a said under a deed of trust, to be dissolved, and directing a sale according to the deed of trust, and the bringing of the proceeds into court
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.