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
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
Hawkins v. United States
Hawkins v. United States. 1. A. agreed to furnish the United States a number of cubic yards of rubble-stone, for the'construction of a public building under a contract which, after prescribing the dimensions of the material, and the price t
County of Ray v. Vansycle
County of Ray v. Vansycle. Pursuant to a power conferred in the charter of A., a railroad company, a/county court of Missouri subscribed, in the year 1860, for stock, and agreed toissue county bonds in payment therefor. Under the authority
Ketchum v. Duncan
Ketchum v. Duncan. Hays v. Ketchum. 1. While' it is true that it is essential to a sale that both parties should consent to it, yet the consent of the former owner need not be expressly given, but may be inferred from the circumstances of t
Insurance Co. v. Gossler
Insurance Company v. Gossler. 1. So long as a vessel exists in specie in the hands of the owner, although she may require repairs greater than her value, a case of “ utter loss,” within the meaning of a bottomry and respondentia bond, does
Gold-Mining Co. v. National Bank
Gold-Mining Company v. National Bank. 1. A defendant, sued by a national bank for moneys it loaned him, cannot set up as a bar that they exceeded in amount one-tenth part of its capital stock actually paid in. 2. Where an agent, without aut
Brine v. Insurance Co.
Brine v. Insurance Company. 1. The laws of the State in which land is situated control exclusively its descent, alienation, and transfer, and the effect and construction of instruments intended to convey it. 2. All such laws in existence wh
Gregory v. Morris
Gregory v. Morris. 1. The rule of the common law, that, the lien of the vendor of personal property, to secure the payment of purchase-money, is lost by the voluntary and unconditional delivery of the property to the purchaser,.does not pre
Hayward v. National Bank
Hayward v. National Bank. A. borrowed of a bank money on call, and deposited with it as collateral security certain mining stocks, with written authority to sell them at its discretion. The loan remaining unpaid, the bank notified him that,
Edwards v. Kearzey
Edwards v. Kearzey. The remedy subsisting in a State when and where a contract is made, and is to be performed, is a part of its obligation; and any subsequent law of the State, which so affects that remedy as substantially to impair and le
Railroad Co. v. Collector
Railroad Company v. Collector. 1. Under the provisions of .the act of March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 344), the cost of printing all records in this court, after Oct. 1 in that year, which is paid by the government, must he taxed against the losing
Insurance Co. v. Brune's Assignee
Insurance Company v. Brune’s Assignee. 1. The rule at law that the pendency of a former action between the same parties for the same cause is pleadable in abatement to a second action, provided th'e actions be in courts of the' same State,
Bissell v. Heyward
Bissell v. Heyward. 1. A. made his will, appointing C. his executor, and devising his real, property in South Carolina to B. for life; and, after the determination of that estate, to' C., in trust, to support certain contingent remainders i
Insurance Co. v. Eggleston
Insurance Company v. Eggleston. 1. Any agreement, declaration, or course of action on the part of .an insurance company, which leads a party insured honestly to believe that by-conforming thereto a forfeiture of his policy will not be incur
United States v. Kaufman
United States v. Kaufman. A brewer paid to the collector of internal revenue $100 for special tax on his business from May 1, 1873, to April 30,1874, for which a special tax stamp was given him. At the close of the year, it was found, that
Garfield v. Paris
Garfield v. Paris. 1. Matters of evidence are not required to be stated in a bill of particulars. 2. A purchaser’s receipt and acceptance of goods sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds may be constructive. . 3.. A. contracted by parol
Schumacher v. Cornell
Schumacher v. Cornell. 1. Letters-patent No. 133,636, granted Dec. 3,1872, to William Johnson, for an improvement in wrenches, do not infringe reissued letters-patent No. 5026, granted Aug. 6,1872, to John Lacey and George B. Cornell, for a
Insurance Co. v. Mowry
Insurance Company v. Mowry. 1. The only case where^a representation.as to the future can operate as an estoppel is where it relates to the purposed abandonment of an existing right, and-Was intended to influence, and has influenced, the con
Wolf v. Stix
Wolf v. Stix. A decree dismissing a bill in chancery brought to recover a debt and set aside an ’ alleged fraudulent sale of property, was; on appeal, reversed, and a decree rendered by the Supreme Court of the State against the appellee fo
National Bank v. Warren
National Bank v. Warren. The mere non-resistance of a debtor to judicial proceedings' in which a judgment was rendered against him, when the debt was due and there was no valid defence to it, is not the suffering and giving a preference und
Moore v. Robbins
Moore v. Robbins. 1.- A patent for public land, when issued by the Land Department, aeting within the scope of its authority, and delivered to and accepted by the grantee, passes the legal title to the land. All control of the Executive Dep
Railroad Co. v. Richmond
Railroad Company v. Richmond. 1. The ordinance of the council of the city of Richmond, passed Sept. 8,1873, that “ no car, engine, carriage, or other vehicle of any kind belonging to or used by the Richmond, Eredericksburg, and Potomac Rail
Atherton v. Fowler
Atherton v. Fowler. 1. No right of pre-emption can he established by a settlement and improvement on a tract, of public land where the claimant forcibly intruded upon the possession of one who had already settled upon, improved, and enclose
Railroad Co. v. Maine
Railroad Company v. Maine. 1. Whére two or more corporations, subjected to a special tax upon the net income of their roads, with immunity from ■ other taxation, — the amount of such special tax being dependent upon reports to be made and i
Casey v. Schneider
Casey v. Schneider. Under the statute of Louisiana relating to pledges of negotiable and other securities, which was in force in the year 1873, when the .transaction in this case took place, the actual delivery of such securities was suffic
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.