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
1877 Cases
258 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
Ex parte Railroad Co.
Ex parte Railroad Company. 1. Where the final decree of the Circuit Court is inconsistent with an interlocutory decree granting affirmative relief upon a cross-bill in the same suit, a -party adversely affected by such final decree, where t
Roemer v. Simon
Roemer v. Simon. 1. Letters-patent No. 56,801, issued July 31, 1866, to William Roemer, for an improvement in travelling-bags, cannot be sustained, as the thing patented was, before his alleged invention, known and extensively used by other
Radich v. Hutchins
Radich v. Hutchins. 1..' Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147, cited and approved. 2. A foreigner, domiciled during the year 1864 in Texas, who, in order to obtain permission of the rebel government to export his cotton/ sold at a nomina
Bates v. Clark
Bates v. Clark. 1. In the absence of any different provision by treaty or by act of Congress; all the country described by the first section of the act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. ’ 729), as Indian country, remains such only as long as the In
Preston v. Preston
Preston v. Preston. 1. A contract for the conveyance of lands, which a court of equity will specifically enforce, must be certain in its terms, and the certainty required has reference both to the description of the property and the estate
Fabbri v. Murphy
Fabbri v. Murphy. Certain goods were imported in November, 1860, and stored in a bonded warehouse' until .March 20, 1871, when they were withdrawn for consumption. . Held, that, having so remained in such warehouse, they were, under the act
Kerr v. Clampitt
Kerr v. Clampitt. 1. This court has no- jurisdiction to revise the action of an inferior court upon the question of either granting or refusing a new trial, and the final judgment of such court cannot be examined through its rulings upon th
Amory v. Amory
Amory v. Amory. Same v. Same 1. A petition for tire removal from a State court of a suit, bróugl-t'by tlie plain-. tiffs in their representative capacity as executors is insufficient, under tbe . act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 558), where t
Insurance Co. v. Pechner
Insurance Company v. Pechner. 1. A person not a citizen of the State, in a court whereof he is sued, cannot, under the twelfth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, remove the suit to the Circuit' Court of the-United.States, by reason of th
West Philadelphia Bank v. Dickson
West Philadelphia Bank v. Dickson. Money paid to his creditors,’by a person who they have reasonable cause to believe is insolvent, or obtained by them-ojn an attachment issued against his property, within four months next preceding the com
Blount v. Windley
Blount v. Windley. 1. When no rights of third parties interfere, the extent to which mutual obligations may be set off against each other, and the mode of doing it, are wholly subject to legislative control- 2. A statute, therefore, as that
Insurance Co. v. Lanier
Insurance Company v. Lanier. 1. A bill of exceptions, allowed and signed or sealed by the judge, is the only mode by'which his. rulings during the progress of a trial, or his charge to the jury, can be rendered a part of the record. 2. The
Railroad Co. v. Hecht
Railroad Company v. Hecht. 1. A statute which prescribes a mode of serving process upon railroad companies different from that provided for in a charter previously granted to a particular company, does not impair tlie obligation of the cont
Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead
Continental Improvement Company v. Stead. 1. Travellers upon a common highway which crosses a railroad upon the same level, and the railroad company running a train, have mutual and reciprocal duties and obligations; and, although the train
Brown v. County of Buena Vista
Brown v. County of Buena Vista. 1. A court of equity will not relieve against a judgment at law where the party seeking its aid has been guilty of laches or fault. 2. Whether the time which has elapsed since the discovery Of the fraud, set
Knote v. United States
Knote v. United States. 1. The general pardon and amnesty granted by President Johnson, by proclamation, on the 25th of December, 1868, do not.entitle one receiving their benefits to the proceeds of his property, previously condemned and so
Movius v. Arthur
Movius v. Arthur. 1. The act of Congress, approved June 6, 1872 (17 Stat. 230), does not repeal the provisions in the acts of March 2, 1861 (12 id. 189), Aug. 5, 1861 (id. 293), and July 14,1862 (id. 555), imposing duties on japanned, paten
Insurance Co. v. Boon
Insurance Company v. Boon. 1. Where the issues are tried by the court, its finding belongs to the record as fully as does the verdict of a jury. 2. Where the court tried the issues of fact, and its opinion, embodying its findings and the co
New Jersey v. Yard
New Jersey v. Yard. 1. A statute of a State, which declares that all charters' of corporations granted after its passage may he altered, amended, or repealed by the legislature, does not necessarily apply to supplements to an existing chart
Buffington v. Harvey
Buffington v. Harvey. 1. The court approves .the ruling in Whiting et al. v. The Bank of the United Stales, 13 Pet. 6, and Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 00, that the only questions open in a bill of review, except when it is filed on the ground o
Good v. Martin
Good v. Martin. 1. In a sui upon -a promissory note, the court below charged the jury that if the defendant, without making.any statement of his intention in so doing, wrote his name on the back of the note before its delivery to the payee,
Packet Co. v. Keokuk
Packet Company v. Keokuk. 1. A municipal corporation having, by its charter, an exclusive right to make wharves on the banks of a navigable river upon which it is situated, collectwharfage, and regulate wharfage rates; can, consistently wit
Railroad Co. v. Rose
Railroad Company v. Rose. A railroad company paid to the holders of its bonds the entire amount of semiannual interest accruing thereon from Jan. 1 to July 1, 1870. Held, that the proper internal revenue officer Of the United States rightfu
Ex parte Easton
Ex parte Easton. 1. Claims for wharfage, arising out of either an- express or an implied'contract, are cognizable in admiralty. 2. Where the wharfage has not been agreed upon by the parties, the wharfinger is entitled, as upon an implied co
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.