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
1873 Cases
206 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
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Fuller
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. FULLER. ERROR, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA. No. 89. Submitted November 6, 1873. Decided December 23, 1873. Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 661, followed. Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiff in
South Carolina ex rel. Robb v. Gurney
SOUTH CAROLINA ex rel. ROBB v. GURNEY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 22. Re-argued October 20, 21, 1873. Decided November 3, 1873. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, followed.' Mr. W. W. Boyce, Mr. A. G. Magrath
Hailes v. Van Wormer
Hailes v. Van Wormer. . 1. -Á new combination, if it,produees new and useful results, is patentable, though all the constituents of the-combination were well lcnpwn and in common fuse before the combination was made. But the results must ,;
Washing-Machine Co. v. Tool Co.
Washing-Machine Company v. Tool Company. 1. The reissued letters-patent (No. 2829) for a new and improved clothes-wringer, granted to Sylvanus Walker, assignee, on the 81st day of December, 18ü7, construed to-be for a U-sbaped yoke or frame
Stockdale v. Insurance Companies
Stockdale v. The Insurance Companies. 1. The cases of Barnes v. The Railroad (17 Wallace, 294), and United States v. Railroad Company (lb. 322), considered and compared. -2. Held, that whether the tax on dividends arising from the earnings
City of Memphis v. Brown
City of Memphis v. Brown. 1. Where an individual contracted with a city Corporation to, pave its streets, and -the corporation afterwards, by way of assisting him with funds, issued to him its bonds, having several years’to-run (and then wo
McPhaul v. Lapsley
McPhaul v. Lapsley. 1. An affidavit filed under the act of the legislature of (Texas, approved May 13th, 1846, — requiring an affidavit as to the fraudulent character of- ani instrument of writing, properly recorded, and filed among the pap
United States v. Herron
United States v. Herron. 1. A debt due to the United States, though it be by one v.hp owes it as a surety only, is not barred by the debtor’s discharge with certificate, under the Bankrupt Act-of 1867; although the United States may prove i
Cornett v. Williams
Cornett v. Williams. 1. Under th'e act of July 2d, 1864, providing that in civil actions in courts of the United States there shall'be no exclusion of any witness, “because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried ;” witnesses may,
The Lottawanna
The Lottawanna. • 1. It is error and ground of reversal for a Circuit Court to affirm a decree in admiralty of the District Court, and at the same time'dismiss the appeal. 2. Where glaims on the proceeds in the registry of a vessel sold are
Pahlman v. Collector
Pahlman v. The Collector. Under tHe act of July 20th,'1868, imposing taxes on distilled spirits, the-assessor and his assistant, in estimating the true producing capacity of a distillery, are empowered to fix as the true fermenting period s
Twenty per Cent. Cases
Twenty per Cent. Cases. 1. The Twenty.per Cent. Cases (13-'Wallace, 576) affirmed, and the liberal view there taken of the joirai resolution Of 28th February, 1867, allowing , to certain persons in the civil service of the United States at
Bank v. Cooper
Bank v. Cooper. After an assignee in bankruptcy, aided by a creditor, has Uyice- contested before the District Court or its referee the claim of a person who has been allowed to prove his claim, and, after all the evidence which could then
Roach v. Summers
Roach v. Summers. 1. A surety is not discharged by a contract between his principal and their common obligee, which does not place him in a different position'from that which he occupied before the contract was made. 2. Answers in chancery
Insurance Co. v. Baring
Insurance Company v. Baring. 1. If there be no evidence to support facts, assumed in a prayer for a charge, to have been supported by a greater or less weight of evidence, it is the duty of the court to reject the prayer. . It would be erro
Simpson v. Greeley
Simpson v. Greeley. The doctrine settled in Williams v. Bank (11 Wheaton, 414), and declared in Masterson v. Herndon (1(1 Wallace, 416), to bo “ the established doctrine of the court” — that all the parties against whom a joint judgment or
Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg & Corning Railroad
Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg and Corning Railroad. 1. Where, in a judicial proceeding,-the matter passed upon is the right under the language of a certain contract to take receipts on a railroad, the judgment concludes the question of .the m
Burton v. Driggs
Burton v. Driggs. 1. Where a party excepts to the admission of testimony he is bound .to state his objection specifically, and in a proceeding for error he is confined to the objection so taken. If he assign no ground of exception, the. mer
Knapp v. Railroad Co.
Knapp v. Railroad Company. 1. In determining a question whether a Circuit Oour'thad erred in denying a motion to remand- a ease removed to it from tjie-State court, and giving judgment as if the case had been rightly removed-to it, this cou
Conrad's Lots
Conrad’s Lots. ■When, under the Confiscation Act of July 1.7th, 1862, an information has been filed in the District Court and a decree of condemnation and sale of the land seized been made, and the -money has been paid into the registry of
Claims of Marcuard
Note. Claims of Marcuard et al. Holders of liens against real estate sold under the Confiscation Act of July 17th, 1862, should pot he permitted to intervene in any proceedings for the. confiscation. Their liens will not, in any event, be d
Confiscation Cases
The Confiscation Cases. [Slidell’s Land.] I. An information in rem under the fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the Confiscation Act of July 17th,' 1862, for the confiscation of the real estate of a person falling within the provisions o
National Bank v. Texas
National Bank of Washington v. Texas. 1. A note payable to bearer, though overdue and dishonored,.passes by delivery the legal title to the holder, subject to such equities as may be asserted by reason' of its dishonor. 2. Any one disputing
Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. Winsor
Oregon Steam Navigation Company v. Winsor. Questions about contracts in restraint of trade must be judged according to the circumstances on which they arise, and in subservience to the general rule that there must bo no injury to the public
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.