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
The "Idaho."
The “Idaho.” 1. Actual delivery by the bailee on the demand of the true owner, who has the right to the immediate possession of the goods bailed, is a sufficient defence of the bailee against the claim of the bailor, and there is no differe
County of Callaway v. Foster
County of Callaway v. Foster. 1. The powers of a railroad company, in Missouri, in existence prior to the adoption of the constitutional provision of 1865, prohibiting subscriptions to the stock of any corporation by counties, cities, or to
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Rogers. This court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment of a circuit court rendered subsequently to May 1, 1875, unless the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $5,000, exclusive of costs. I
Huff v. Doyle
Huff v. Doyle et al. 1. The act of Congress of July 23,1866 (14 Stat. 218), confirming selections theretofore made by California of any portion of the public domain, divided them into two classes ; namely, one in which they had been made fr
Stanton v. Embrey
Stanton et al. v. Embrey, Administrator. 1. Pleading'over to a declaration adjudged good on demurrer is a waiver of the demurrer. 2. The pendency of a prior suit in a State court is not a bar to a suit in a circuit court of the United State
Home Insurance v. Baltimore Warehouse Co.
Home Insurance Company v. Baltimore Warehouse Company. 1. A policy of insurance taken out by warehouse-keepers, against loss or damage by fire on “ merchandise, their own or' held by them in trust, or in which they have an interest or liabi
White v. Luning
White et al. v. Luning. 1. The rule that monuments, natural or artificial, rather than courses and distances, control in the construction of a conveyance of real estate, will not be enforced, when the instrument would be thereby defeated, a
County of Randolph v. Post
County of Randolph v. Post. 1. A cómpany is none the less a railroad company, within the meaning of the act of the general assembly of the State of Illinois, approved Nov. 6, 1849j authorizing counties, to subscribe to the capital stock of
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company et al. 1. Where the claim for a patent for an invention, which consists of a product dr a manufacture made in a defined manner, refers in terms to the antecedent description in the specification of
Wiggins v. People
Wiggins v. People, etc., in Utah. 1/ A writ- of error from this court to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah is allowed by sect. 3 of the act of Congress of June 23, 1874 (18 Stat. 254), in criminal cases, where the accused lias'been
Russell v. Dodge
Russell v. Dodge. 1. Where a reissued patent is granted upon a surrender of the original, for its alleged defective or insufficient specification, such specification. cannot be substantially changed in the reissued patent, either by the add
Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad v. United States
Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company v. United States. Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fé Railroad Company v. United States. 3. A provision in an act of Congress, granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad, that “ said ra
Lovejoy v. Spafford
Lovejoy v. Spafford et al. 1. A., having had no previous dealings with a firm, but having heard of its existence, and who composed it, sold goods to one of the partners, and received in payment therefor a draft by.him drawn upon the firm, a
Osterberg v. Union Trust Co.
Osterberg v. Union Trust Company. 1. A lien for taxes does not stand upon tlie footing of an ordinary incumbrance; and, unless otherwise directed by statute, is not displaced by a sale of the property under a pre-existing judgment or decree
DeBary v. Arthur
DeBary v. Arthur, Collector. The act of Congress of July 14, 1870 (16 Stat. 262), imposed on champagne wine a duty of six dollars per dozen bottles (quarts), and three dollars per dozen bottles (pints), and upon each bottle containing it an
Sage v. Central Railroad
Sage et al. v. Central Railroad Company of Iowa et al. 1. To make a nunc pro tunc order effectual for the purposes of a supersedeas, it must appear that the delay was the act of the court, and not of the parties, and that injustice will not
The "John L. Hasbrouck."
The “John L. Hasbrouck.” 1. The rule requiring, a sailing-vessel to keep her course when approaching a steamer in,such direction as to involve risk of collision does not forbid such necessary variations in her course as will enable her to a
Ex parte Karstendick
Ex parte Karstendick. 1. Where a person, convicted of an offence against the United States, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term longer than one year, the court may, in its discretion, direct his confinement in a State penitentiary. 2; I
Mutual Life Insurance v. Snyder
Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Snyder. 1. The court is not authorized to take from the jury the right of weighing the evidence bearing on controverted facts in issue. 2. The court below properly refused to give an instruction declaring th
Callanan v. Hurley
Callanan v. Hurley. 1. A treasurer’s deed for lands sold for delinquent taxes in the State of Iowa, if substantially regular in form, is, under the statutes of that State, at least prima facie evidence that a sale was made; and, if there wa
Dodge v. Freedman's Savings & Trust Co.
Dodge et al. v. Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company. 1. Declarations made by the holder of a promissory note or of a chattel, while he . held it, are not admissible in evidence in a suit upon or in relation to it by a subsequent owner. 2.
Cohn v. United States Corset Co.
Cohn v. United States Corset Company. 1. To defeat a party suing for an infringement-of letters-patent, it is sufficient to plead and prove that prior to his supposed invention' or diseovery the thing patented to him had been patented, or a
Norton v. Switzer
Norton, Assignee, v. Switzer. 1. A suit pending against a party at the time he is adjudged a bankrupt, may, after due notice to his assignee, be prosecuted to final judgment against the latter in his representative capacity, where he makes
Cowdrey v. Galveston, Houston, & Henderson Railroad
Cowdrey et al. v. Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad Company et al. 1. A receiver is not authorized, without the previous direction of the court, to incur any expenses on account of property in his hands, beyond what is absolutely e
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.