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
Burbank v. Conrad
Burbank v. Conrad. 1. In Louisiana, a conveyance of lands is valid between.the parties without reg- • istration, and passes the title. The only consequence of a failure of the purchaser to’place his conveyance on the records of the parish w
Conrad v. Waples
Conrad v. Waples. 1. The act of July 17,1862 (12 Stat. 589), so far as it related to the confiscation of property, applied only to the property of persons who thereafter might be guilty of acts of disloyalty and treason; and it reached only
Township of Rock Creek v. Strong
Township of Rock Creek v. Strong. 1. The act of the legislature of Kansas, entitled “ An Act to authorize counties, incorporated cities, aijd municipal townships to issue bonds for the purpose of building bridges, aidjng in the construction
Wheeler v. National Bank
Wheeler v. National Bank. Suit by a national bank upon a bill of exchange. Defence, usury. The bank, in discounting the bill, reserved a greater amount than was allowed fór interest by the law of 'the State .where it was situated. There was
Railway Co. v. McCarthy
Railway Company v. McCarthy. 1. The court reaffirms Its former decisions, that a court is.not hound to give instructions in the language in which they are asked. If those given sufficiently cover the case, and are correct, the judgment will
McLean v. Fleming
McLean v. Fleming. 1. "Where a manufacturer has habitually stamped his goods with a particular mark or brand, a court of equity will restrain another party from adopting it for the same kind of goods. 2. Positive proof of fraudulent intent
Insurance Co. v. Norton
Insurance Company v. Norton. 1. An insurance company may waive any condition of a policy inserted therein ' for its benefit. 2. As the' company may at any time, at its option, give authority to its agents to make agreements, or to waive for
United States v. Morrison
United States v. Morrison. 1. A quartermaster of a regiment of cavalry, who also serves as acting assistant-commissary, is entitled to the additional compensation of §100 per annum provided for by sect. 1261 of the Revised Statutes. 2. As s
Werner v. King
Werner v. King. 1. Form,' -when of the essence.of an invention, is necessarily material; and, if it be inseparable from the successful operation of the machine, the attainment of the same object by a machine different in form is not an infr
United States v. County of Clark
United States v. County of Clark. A county subscribed.for stock of- a railroad, corporation, and issued bonds in payment therefor, pursuant to a law which authorized a levy of a special tax ' to pay them, “ not to excee'd one-twentieth of '
County Commissioners v. Chandler
County Commissioners v. Chandler. 1. Abridge intended for and used as a thoroughfare'is a public highway, and hence a work'of internal improvement, within the meaning, of the-act of Nebraska passed Eeb. 15, 1869, authorizing cities, countie
Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes
Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes. 1. A petition for the removal of a suit from á State court to a Eederal. court is insufficient, unless it sets forth in due form, such as is required in good pleading, the essential facts not otherwi
Dewing v. Perdicaries
Dewing v. Perdicaries. 1. All acts done in aid of the rebellion were illegal and void. 2. Pursuant to a statute of the' Confederate States, and to an order of the' Confederate District Court for the District of South Carolina, certain share
Williams v. Bruffy
Williams v. Bruffy. . I. The-Confederate States was an illegal organization,'within the provision of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting any treaty, alliance, or' ' confederation of one State with another; whatever efficacy, t
Ferguson v. McLaughlin
Ferguson v. McLaughlin. Under sect. 6 of the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 244), a settler'upon unsurveyed public la-ncjs in California has no valid claim to pre-empt a quarter-section, or any part thereof included in his settlement, unles
Brawley v. United States
Brawley v. United States. 1. Where a contract is made to sell or furnish certain goods identified hy refer- ' ence to independent circumstances,-such as an entire lot deposited in a certain warehouse, or all that may he manufactured hy the
Water & Mining Co. v. Bugbey
Water and Mining Company v. Bugbey. 1. The act of March 3,1853 (10 Stat. 244), granted for school purposes to Cali- ■ fornia the public lands within sections 16 and 36 in each congressional township in that State, except so much of them whe
Mitchell v. United States
Mitchell v. United States. Where the United States chartered a vessel for a “ voyage or voyages,” at a stipulated price per diem for every day yrhen so employed, — Held, that the contract only embraced the employment of the vessel when on s
Kohlsaat v. Murphy
Kohlsaat v. Murphy. 1. The joint resolution of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 571), repealing that portion of the fifth section of .the act approved June 30, 1864 (13 id. 208), which subjected to a duty of ten per cent ad valorem “lastings, mohair
Davies v. Arthur
Davies v. Arthur. An importei, having set forth in his written protest the ground of his objection to the payment of customs duties exacted by the collector, cannot, in his suit against the latter, recover them upon any ground other .'than
Arthur v. Goddard
Arthur v. Goddard. The plaintiffs below entered an importation of goods, upon the following invoice : — Bought , ■.......... .'.......Fr’s 8,670.25 Discount for cash on gros^'amount, two per cent, 8,766.60 ...... 175.30 Fr’s 8,494.95 Terms
Arthur v. Rheims
Arthur v. Rheims. 1. The rale that an article, dutiable by its specific designation, will not be affected by the. general.'words of the same or another statute, which would otherwise embrace it, applies as well to statutes reducing duties a
Arthur v. Herman
Arthur v. Herman. In 1872, A. imported certain goods manufactured of cattle hair and cotton, the latter not being the component part of chief value. Held, that, under the last paragraph of the sixth section of the act of June 30,1864 (13 St
Arthur v. Homer
Arthur v. Homer. 1. The duty imposed on embroidered linen goods by the-twenty-second section of the act of March 2,1861 (12 Stat. 192), is not reconsidered in the seventh section of the act of June 30, 1864 (13 id. 209), but remains as-fixe
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.