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
1874 Cases
197 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
French v. Edwards
French v. Edwards. 1. Where the owner of land in fee makes a conveyance to a person in trust to convey to others upon certain conditions, and the conditions never arise, so that the trust cannot possibly be executed, a presumption arises in
Vermilye & Co. v. Adams Express Co.
Vermilye & Co. v. Adams Express Company. 1. The bonds and treasury notes of the United States payable to holder or bearer at a definite future time are negotiable commercial paper, and their transferability is subject to the commercial law
Dupasseur v. Rochereau
Dupasseur v. Rochereau. 1. When, in a case in a State court, a right or immunity is set up under and by virtue of a judgment of a court of the United States,.and the decision is against such right or immunity, a case is presented for remova
Watson v. Bondurant
Watson v. Bondurant. 1. By the law of Louisiana, as held by her courts, it is indispensably necessary, in order to make a valid sale of land under a foreclosure of a mortgage, that in all parishes, except J efferson and Orleans, there shoul
City of Sacramento v. Fowle
City of Sacramento v. Fowle. 1. Under the Process Act of California, enacting that in a suit against a corporation the summons may be served on “ the president or other head of the corporation,” service is properly made on the president of
Smith v. Nichols
Smith v. Nichols. 1. Under the seventh and ninth sections of the Patent' Act of 1837, which authorize a patentee, when by mistake, &c., he may have made his specification too broad, to make disclaimer of such parts of the thing patented as
Cooper & Co. v. Coates & Co.
Cooper & Co. v. Coates & Co. 1. The statute of Illinois, which in trials of actions by or against partners on contracts, dispenses, in the first instance, with the necessity of proof of the partnership, applies to a case where the declarati
Douglass v. Douglass
Douglass v. Douglass, Administrator. 1 Under the statute of Maryland, passed in 1785 (chapter 80, § 14), where, in a replevin suit,- the party from whom the goods were taken is reinstated in his possession by executing a bond, and a bond is
Hamilton v. Dillin
Hamilton v. Dillin. The government of the United States clearly has power to permit limited commercial intercourse with an enemy in time of war, and to impose such conditions thereon as it sees fit; this power is incident to the power to de
Maxwell v. Stewart
Maxwell v. Stewart. 1. Where there is no assignment of error, the defendant in error may either move to dismiss the writ, or he may open the record and pray for an affirmance. 2. In a suit upon a judgment of a sister State, objections to th
Clinkenbeard v. United States
Clinkenbeard et al. v. United States. On debt upon a distiller’s bond to charge him with non-payment of a capacity-tax assessed for an entire month, the distiller may properly show, that without any fault of his own, and that by the omissio
Schulenberg v. Harriman
Schulenberg et al. v. Harriman. 1. On the 3d of June, 1856, Congress passed an act entitled “ An act granting public lands to the State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of railroads in said State.” That act grants to the State for th
Vannevar v. Bryant
Vannevar v. Bryant. 1. A suit in a State court against several defendants, in which the plaintiff and certain of the defendants are citizens of the same State, and the remaining defendants citizens of. other States, cannot be removed to the
Gardner v. Brown
Gardner v. Brown. Í. Though statute may enact that a trustee to whom property is assigned in trust for any person, “ before entering upon the discharge of his duty, shall give bond ” for the faithful discharge of his duties, his omission to
Doane v. Glenn
Doane v. Glenn. Where objections to the reading of a deposition made while a trial is In progress do not go to the testimony of the witness, hut relate to defects which might have been obviated by retaking the deposition, the objections wil
Jerome v. McCarter
Jerome v. McCarter. 1. The amount of a supersedeas bond as well -as the sufficiency of the security are matters to be determined by the judge below, under the provisions of the twenty-ninth rule. 2. The discretion thus exercised by him will
The Lady Pike
The Lady Pike. 1. Though on appeals in admiralty, involving issues of fact alono, this court will not, except in a clear ease, reverse whero both the District and the Circuit Court have agreed in their conclusions, yet in a clear case it wi
Basey v. Gallagher
Basey et al. v. Gallagher. 1. Where in an equity case a demurrer is filed to the complaint and the record does not disclose what disposition was mad'e of it, and an answer is subsequently filed, upon which the parties proceed to a hearing,
Loan Ass'n v. Topeka
Loan Association v. Topeka. 1.' A statute which authorizes towns to contract debts or other obligations payable in money implies the duty to levy taxes to pay them, unless some other fund or source of payment is provided. 2. If there is no
Parcels v. Johnson
Parcels v. Johnson. A writ of error from this court will not lie to remove the judgment of an inferior appellate court, where the judgment of that court remands a ■ case to another below it for new trial and hearing, and where it is evi-. d
Treat v. Jemison
Treat v. Jemison. A judgment affirmed for want of such an assignment of errors as is required by the twenty-first rule; there being in the record no plain error not assigned and such as the court thought fit to be noticed by it without a '
Cadle v. Baker
Cadle v. Baker. The debtors of a National bank, when sued by a person whom the comptroller, professing to act in pursuance of the fiftieth section of the National Currency Act, has appointed to be its receiver, cannot inquire into the lawfu
Mathews v. McStea
Mathews v. McStea. The decision of a State court-passing upon the effect produced by the act of the executive on a given contract in inaugurating the late civil war in the United States, is reviewable here by writ of error under the second
Railroad Co. v. Maryland
The Railroad Company v. Maryland. [On Motion.] Where,-on error to the supreme court of a State, the record shows a decision of the State court on a Federal question properly presented, and of ■which this court could tal
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.