Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 313,002+ 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
1875 Cases
203 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
Blease v. Garlington
BLEASE v. GARLINGTON. 1. Cases in equity come here from the circuit courts, and the district courts sitting as circuit courts, by appeal, and are heard upon the proofs sent up with the record. No new evidence can be received here. 2. So muc
Nichols v. Eaton
Nichols, Assignee, v. Eaton et al. 1. A devise of the income from property, to cease on the insolvency or bankruptcy of the devisee, is good; and a limitation over to his wife and children, upon the happening of such contingency, is valid,
Raymond v. Thomas
Raymond v. Thomas. The special order, issued May.28,1868, by the officer in command of the forcea of the United States in South Carolina, wholly annulling a decree rendered by a court of chancery in that State in a case within its jurisdict
Warren v. Shook
Warren et al. v. Shook. 1. The substance of the business of a banker, as defined by the acts of Congress approved June 30,1864 (13 Stat. 252), and March 3,1865 (id. 472), is having a place of business where deposits are received and paid ou
The "Colorado"
The “Colorado.” 1. At night, during a dense fog, a collision occurred on Lake Huron between a bark of 420'tons, bound down, and a'propeller of 1,800 tons, bound up, the lake. The wind was from the sduth. The bark, well manned and equipped,
Warfield v. Chaffe
Warfield v. Chaffe et al. The-petition for the allowance of a writ of error forms no part of the record of the court helow; and this court has no jurisdiction to determine a Federal question presented in such petition, hut not disclosed by
Florida v. Anderson
State of Florida v. Anderson et al. Certain railroad companies, availing themselves of the provisions of an act of the legislature of Florida of Jan. 10, 1855, to provide for and encourage A liberal system of internal improvements in that S
New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.
New Lamp Chimney Company v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Company. 1. The , creditor of a manufacturing Corporation, which was duly adjudicated a bankrupt, who proved his claim and received a dividend thereon, does not ' thereby waive his right
Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. Seymour
Phillips and Colby Construction Company v. Seymour et al. I. A., who had undertaken to build a railroad for a company, entered July 18, 1872, into a sealed contract with B. for building a hundred and sixty miles of the road. The contract, a
Mississippi & Missouri Railroad v. Cromwell
Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company v. Cromwell. A court of equity is not bound to shut its eyes to the evident character of a transaction .where its aid is sought to carry into effect an unconscionable bargain, but will leave the par
Knotts v. Stearns
Knotts et al. v. Stearns et al. 1. Where, upon a bill filed for that purpose in the proper court by the guardian of infants, a decree for the sale of the real property, whereof their, father died seized, was obtained with the consent of his
Dows v. National Exchange Bank
Dows et al. v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee. 1. An invoice is neither a bill of sale nor evidence of a sale, and, standing alone, furnishes no proof of title. 2. A party discounting a draft, and receiving therewith, deliverable to hi
Gilman v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co.
Gilman et al. v. Illinois and Mississippi Telegraph Company. Coykendall, Garnishee, v. Idem. 1. Where a trial by the court below was not had under the act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 501), the rulings excepted torn the progress of such trial
Woodruff v. Hough
Woodruff et al. v. Hough et al. 1, A,, who had covenanted with the supervisors' of ¿' county to construct a jail subject to the approval of a superintendent, who was.authorized to stop the work if .it and the materials furnished did not con
Bolling v. Lersner
Bolling v. Lersner. This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment or decree of a State . court, unless it.appears-from the record that a Federal question presented to that" court was in fact decided, or that the decision was nec
Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury
Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury. 1. A director of a corporation is not prohibited from lending it moneys when they are needed for its benefit, and the transaction is open, and otherwise free from blame; nor is his subsequent purchase of it
Haldeman v. United States
Haldeman et al. v. United States. 1. - The entry of a judgment, “that the suit is not prosecuted, and be dismissed,” is nothing more than the record of a nonsuit. 2. The words “dismissed agreed,” entered as the judgment of a court, do not o
Watts v. Territory of Washington
Watts v. Territory of Washington. This court can only review the final ¡judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington in criminal cases, when the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States is drawn in question.
McManus v. O'Sullivan
McManus v. O’Sullivan et al. This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment of a State court where a Eederal question was not in fact passed upon, and where a decision of it was rendered unnecessary in the view which the court be
Spencer v. United States
Spencer v. United States. No suit can be maintained against the United States under the Abandoned and Captured Property Act (12 Stat. 820), if the property in question was neither captured, seized, nor sold pursuant to its provisions, and t
Meyer v. Arthur
Meyer et al. v. Arthur. 1. Where, in the act of June 6,1872, to reduce the duties- on imports (17 Stat. 230), Congress provided that on and after Aug. 1, 1872, but ninety per centum of the duties theretofore levied should.be collected and p
Hall v. United States
Hall et al. v. United States. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
Hall v. United States
Hall et al. v. United States. 1. The twenty-fifth section of the act of June 30,1864 (13 Stat.'231)., ¡authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make, in his discretion, just and reasonable allowances to collectors of internal revenue, in
United States v. Norton
United States v. Norton. A motion to advance a criminal cause made on behalf of the United' States must state the facts in such manner that the court may judge whether the government will be embarrassed in the administration of its affairs
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.