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
1869 Cases
181 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
Norris v. Jackson
Norris v. Jackson. 1. The 4th section of the act of March 6th, 1865, establishes the mode in which parties may submit cases to the court without a jury, and the manner in which a review of the law of such cases may be had in this court. 2.
Cheever v. Wilson
Cheever v. Wilson. 1. A married woman having rents from her separate real estate which had been settled upon her and was leased by her on long leases, subject to her mother’s dower, pledged them to her tenant by proper instrument, to a cert
Pelham v. Rose
Pelham v. Rose. 1. The seizure of the property of which a forfeiture is sought by proceedings had under the act of Congress of July 17th, 1862, “to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property
Railroad Co. v. Smith
Note. About a fortnight after the above reported case was adjudged, there was adjudged another from a different State, and which, as respected the position of parties, was a sort of converse to it; and in its nature somewhat supplementary.
Railroad Co. v. Fremont County
Railroad Company v. Fremont County. The proviso in the act of May 15th, 1856, to the State of Iowa, for aid in the construction of railroads, which excludes from the grant “ all lands heretofore reserved hy any act of Congress, or in any ma
United States v. Keehler
United States v. Keehler. 1. The voluntary payment by an officer of the Federal government, of money held by him for the government, to a creditor of the United States, cannot be set up by him or his sureties as a defence in a suit on his o
Smith v. Morse
Smith v. Morse. 1. Where the covenant in a submission to arbitration, after referring certain claims to the decision of arbitrators, and an umpire, if necessary, adds the words, “as provided in articles of submission this day executed,” and
United States v. Grossmayer
Note. Soon after judgment was rendered in the case which precedes, was decided also another case under the same acts of Congress, but presenting a state of facts distinguishing it from that case. It was the case of United States v. Grossmay
United States v. Anderson
United States v. Anderson. 1. Under the act of March 12th, 1863, commonly called the “ Abandoned or Captured Property Act,” it- is not necessary that a party preferring his claim in the Court of Claims for the proceeds of property taken and
Chicago v. Sheldon
Chicago v Sheldon. 1. The clause in the ordinance of May 23d, 1859, by which the city of Chicago granted to the North Chicago City Railway Company the > ,ght to construct a railway, the company agreeing, that it should— “As respects the gra
Filor v. United States
Filor v. United States. 1. The act of Congress of July 4tb, 1864 (13Stat. at Large, 381), declares “that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims shall not extend to, or include, any claim against the United States, growing out of the destru
United States v. Dewitt
United States v. Dewitt. 1. The 29th section of the Internal Revenue Act of March 2d, 1867 (14*Stat. at Large, 484), which makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to mix for sale naphtha and illuminating oils, or to sel
Basset v. United States
Basset v. United States. 1. Where a court sitting in place,of a jury finds the facts, this court cannot review that finding. 2. A plea of nul iiel recurd raises a question of law, where the supposed record is of the court in which the plea
Gut v. State
Gut v. The State. 1. A law of a State changing the place of trial from one county to another county in the same district, or even to a different district from that in which the offence was committed, or the indictment found, is not an ex po
Haver v. Yaker
Haver v. Yaker. Although it is true, as a principle of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature, and that in this regard th
McGoon v. Scales
McGoon v. Scales. 1. A sale of the public land for State taxes while the land is still owned by the United States is invalid. 2. The law of the State in which land is situated, governs its alienation and transfer, and the effect and constru
Reese v. United States
Reese v. United States. 1. Where the condition of a recognizance of bail in a criminal action pending-in a circuit court of the United States, provided that the party held to bail should appear for trial at the next regular term of the cour
Neale v. Neales
Neale v. Neales. 1. In the absence of obligatory rules of court to the contrary, a court of equity, after a cause has been heard and a case for relief made out, but not the case disclosed by the bill, has power to allow an amendment of the
Maguire v. Tyler
Maguire v. Tyler. 1. "When the documentary evidence of title produced by a claimant of an incomplete title to land in the territory ceded by Prance in 1803 contains no sufficient boundary lines marking a definite parcel of land so as to sev
Chicopee Bank v. Philadelphia Bank
Chicopee Bank v. Philadelphia Bank. . Although a bill payable at a particular bank, be physically, and in point of fact, in the bank, still, if the bank be wholly ignorant of its being there — ns when, ex. gr., a letter in which the bill wa
McVeigh v. United States
McVeigh v. United States. A clerical mistake in a writ of error may be amended by the citation.
Broderick's Executor v. Magraw
Note. At the same time with the decision of the preceding case was decided a case in error to the Supreme Court of California, argued some time before it; — the case, namely, of Broderick’s Executor v. Magraw, In which the principles of the
Hepburn v. Griswold
Hepburn v. Griswold. 1. Construed by the plain import of their term's and the manifest intent of the legislature, the statutes of 1862 and 1863, which make United States notes a legal tender in payment-of debts, public and private, apply to
Drehman v. Stifle
Drehman v. Stifle. 1. Section 4 of the constitution of Missouri, which ordains that— “ No person shall he prosecuted in any civil action for or on account of any aetby him done, performed or executed, after the first of January, one thousan
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.