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
1871 Cases
158 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
Gray v. Coan
GRAY v. COAN. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP' THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 481. Argued December 15, 1871. Decided December 18, 1871. To give this court jurisdiction over the judgment of the highest court of a State, brought here by writ of error,
Willard v. Presbury
Willard v. Presbury. 1. Congress has power to confer on the city of Washington authority to assess upon the adjacent proprietors of lots, the expense of repairing streets with a new and different pavement, or of repairing an. old pavement.
Propeller Co. v. United States
Propeller Company v. United States. A. vessel was let by its owners to the United States for an indefinite period, not less than thirty days, and the government undertook to pay $150 for each day that she might be employed under the contrac
Delmas v. Insurance Co.
Delmas v. Insurance Company. L. On a writ of error to a State court; tbis court cannot revise a decision founded on the ground that a contract is void on the general principles of public policy or morality, when that is the only ground on w
The Key City
The Key City. 1. While courts of admiralty arc not governed by any statute of limitations, they adopt the principle that laches or delay .in the judicial enforcement of maritime lions, will, under proper circumstances, constitute a valid de
Mowry v. Whitney
Mowry v. Whitney. 1. Asa Whitney’s patent of April 25th, 1848, for an “improvement in the process of manufacturing cast-iron railroad wheels,” was for a process, not for a combination. 2. Where only vague and uncertain directions could be g
Erskine v. Hohnbach
Erskine, Collector, v. Hohnbach. 1. An appeal to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from an assessment is only a condition precedent to an action for the recovery of taxes paid, and not a condition precedent to any other action where such
Leary v. United States
Leary v. United States. 1. If by the terms of a charter-party the entire vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to .him of its command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, he will generally be considered as own
The Delaware
The Delaware. 1. A “clean” hill of lading, that is to say a bill of lading which is silent as to the place of stowage, imports a contract that the goods are to be stowed under deck. 2. This being so, parol evidence of an agreement that they
Philpot v. Gruninger
Philpot v. Gruninger. 1. In the matter of a contract, a distinction sometimes exists between a motive which may induce entering into it and the actual consideration of the contract. Ex. gr., A person, in virtue of some benefit passing to hi
Gregg v. Moss
Gregg v. Moss. 1. A judgment will not be reversed for the rejection of testimony, whether it was in strict principle admissible or not, where the rejection worked no harm to the party offering it. 2. Whether the evidence before a jury does
Turner v. Smith
Turner v. Smith. 1. Under the act of 6th February, 1863 (12 Stat. at Large, 640), “to amend an act entitled ‘ An Act for the Collection of Direct Taxes in Insurrectionary Districts, &c., approved June 7th, 1862,’ ” which said amendatory act
United States v. Hunt
United States v. Hunt. In construing the third section of the act of March 3d, 1865, increasing the commutation price of officers’ subsistence, by fixing it at fifty cents per ration, “provided that said increase shall not apply to the comm
United States v. Justice
United States v. Justice. Where a contractor with the United States and the United States disagree as to what is justly due to the contractor, and the question is referred to a commission constituted by proper authority to audit such claims
Morgan v. United States
Morgan v. United States. Where the owners of a vessel let her to the government in time of war,— they officering and manning her and agreeing to keep her in repair, and fit for the service in which she was engaged — and they to take the mar
Gorham Co. v. White
Gorham Company v. White. I.. The acts of Congress which authorize the grant of a patent for designs contemplate not so much utility as appearance; and the thing invented or produced for which a patent is given is that which gives a peculiar
Phœnix Insurance v. Hamilton
Phœnix Insurance Company v. Hamilton. 1. Insurance may be effected in the name of a nominal partnership where the business is carried on by and for the use of one of the partners; especially when the property insured (grain) is held by the
United States v. Powell
United States v. Powell. !. On a distiller’s bond, given under the 7th section of the Internal Revenue Act of July 20th, 1868 (15 Stat. at Large, 128), conditioned that the obligors “ shall in all respects comply with all the provisions of
Collins v. Riggs
Note. At the same time with the preceding case was heard another from the same Circuit Court, and .similar to it in all respects, with, however, one additional feature. It was the case of Collins v. Riggs. To redeem property which has been
Dirst v. Morris
Dirst v. Morris. 1. A plaintiff in ejectment, claiming under a deed made on a sale in a foreclosure of a mortgage, may properly put in evidence the record of the proceedings in foreclosure even though the defendant claim by a deed absolute
Cross v. United States
Cross v. United States. The government had leased from A. a ■warehouse for ten years, the rent payable by instalments. A. assigned his lease to B. and died. B. sued the government in the Court of Claims for certain instalments of the rent w
Dolton v. Cain
Dolton v. Cain. 1. Under the limitation laws of Illinois which declare in substance “that whoever has resided on a tract of land for seven successive years prior to the commencement of an action of ejectment, having a connected title in law
Black v. Curran
Black v. Curran. 1. Under the homestead laws of Illinois, the homestead right is not in an absolute sense an estate in the land. The'fee is left as it was before the statutes, subject to a right of occupancy, which cannot be disturbed while
United States v. Ballard
United States v. Ballard et al. 1. Under the act of June 17th, 1864, “ To regulate the foreign and coasting trade in.the northern, northeastern, and northwestern part of the. United States,” &c., the collectors mentioned in it are entitled
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.