Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 313,007+ 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
1876 Cases
224 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
Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker
Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker. So much of the act of the legislature of New York, passed May 22,1862, amended April 17, 1865, as requires, with certain exceptions, all ships or vessels which enter the port of New York, or load or unload
Cammeyer v. Newton
Cammeyer v. Newton. 1. This court finds that letters-patent "No. 80,492, granted to William H. Cammeyer, bearing date July 28, 1868, for an improved portable and adjustable still-water dam, were not infringéd by the defendant. 2. The claims
United States v. Phisterer
United States v. Phisterer. 1. An officer of the army, who, under the Consolidating Act of March 8, 1869, is ordered from a military post, at which he is doing duty, to his home, to await orders, does not exchange his station, within the me
United States v. Smith
United States v. Smith. 1. By reason of its improper suspension of the work of a contractor, who had agreed to supply the skilled labor and the materials necessary for the erection of certain buildings for its use, the United States is liab
Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James
Atlantic Delaine Company v. James. The power of a court of equity to cancel an executed contract ought not to be exercised, unless the fraud and false representations set up as the ground for relief are clearly proved, and the complainant h
Commissioners of Johnson County v. January
Commissioners of Johnson County v. January. 1. Where,’upon the performance of certain conditions precedent, the issue of bonds to a railroad company by the board of commissioners of a county in Kansas is authorized by law, the bonds, when i
Dunbar v. Myers
Dunbar v. Myers. 1, In letters-patent of the United States, No. 10,065, hearing date May 23,1854; issued to John Myers and Robert G. Eunson, granting to them, for the term of fourteen years from that date, the exclusive right and liberty of
Stone v. Wisconsin
Stone v. Wisconsin. As giving a construction to the State Constitution and statute, this court accepts the decision of the Supx 'me Court of Wisconsin, that the charter of the Milwaukee and Waukesha Railroad Company, granted by the Territor
Winona & St. Peter Railroad v. Blake
Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company v. Blake. 1. The Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company, having been incorporated as a common carrier, with all the rights and subject to all the obligations which that term implies, was bound to carry,
Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railroad v. Ackley
Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad Company v. Ackley. A railroad company in Wisconsin cannot recover for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed by the act of that State of March 11,1874, by showing that the amount
Peik v. Chicago & North-western Railway Co.
Peik v. Chicago and North-western Railway Company. Lawrence v. Same. 1. The Chicago and North-western Railway Company was, by its charter, and the charters of other companies consolidated with it, authorized “ to demand and receive such sum
Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad v. Iowa
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. Iowa. 1. Railroad companies are carriers for hire. Engaged in a public employment affecting the public interest, they are, unless protected by their charters, subject to legislative contro
Munn v. Illinois
Munn v. Illinois. 1. Under the powers' inherent in every sovereignty, a government may regulate the conduct of its citizens toward each other, and, when necessary for tlie public good, the manner in which each shall use his own property. 2.
Dayton v. Lash
Dayton v. Lash. An appeal, although allowed out of term, is not avoided by the non-service of .a citation; hut this court will impose such terms upon the appellant as, under the circumstances, may be legal and proper. On motion to dismiss a
Hurst v. Hollingsworth
Hurst v. Hollingsworth. Where a party sued out a writ of error, and obtained the allowance of an appeal, and duly filed a transcript of the record here, the court will not, on motion, dismiss the cause, but, when it comes oh to be heard, wi
Commissioners of Douglas County v. Bolles
Commissioners of Douglas County v. Bolles. 1. Where a railroad company has been a corporation de facto from the date of its organization, its existence and its ability to contract cannot be called in question in a suit brought upon evidence
West Wisconsin Railway Co. v. Foley
West Wisconsin Railway Company v. Foley. 1. Under the twenty-third rule, in relation to damages, where a writ of error was sued out merely for delay, more than ten per cent upon the amount of the judgment cannot be awarded, but the court ma
Omaha v. Hammond
Omaha v. Hammond. Where a contract, entered into by a city for the construction of certain public works, provides that they shall he completed under the supervision and to the satisfaction of an officer of the city, his action, in finally a
Smith v. United States
Smith v. United States. This court will refuse to hear a criminal case, unless the convicted party suing out the writ of error is where he can he made to respond to any judgment which may hé rendered here. .Error to the Supreme Court of Was
Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright
Consolidated Fruit-Jar Company v. Wright. Letters-patent No. 102,913, issued to John L. Mason, May 10, 1870, for an “ Improvement in fruit-jars,” are void: first, because there was a purchase, sale, and prior use of the invention more than
One Hundred & Ninety-nine Barrels of Whiskey v. United States
One Hundred and Ninety-nine Barrels of Whiskey v. United States. 1. The forty-fifth section of the act of July 13, 1866 (14 Stat. 163), imposes upon a claimant of distilled spirits, seized for a violation of that section, the burden of prov
Storm v. United States
Storm v. United States. 1. Alleged errors, not presented by a bill of exceptions, nor otherwise apparent on the face of the record, are not the proper subjects of re-examination by an appellate tribunal. 2. Defendants who have actually rece
United States v. Clark
United States v. Clark. 1. The act of May 9,1866 (14 Stat. 44), extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, does not dispense with the existing rules regulating appeals from that court. 2. In cases to which that act applies, the Cour
County of Leavenworth v. Barnes
County of Leavenworth v. Barnes. 1. This court adopts the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas, affirming the validity and binding effect of an act of the legislature of that State, approved Feb. 10, 1865, entitled “An Act to authorize c
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.