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
Arthur v. Davies
Arthur v. Davies. 1. Tlie duty on braces and suspenders is, eo nomine, fixed by the twenty-sécond section of the act of March 2,1861 (12 Stat. 191), and the thirteenth section of' the act of July 14, 1862 (id. 556). 2.- Merchandise technica
Murphy v. Arnson
Murphy v. Arnson. 1. “Mtro-benzole,” being a manufacture from benzole and nitric"acid, and a non- • enumerated article,' is subject to duty under the twentieth section, known as the similitude clause, of the act of Aug. 30, Í842 (5 Stat. 66
Arthur v. Sussfield
Arthur v. Sussfield. 1. The similitude clause of the act of Aug. 3Q, 1842 (5 Stat. 565), applies only to non-enumerated articles. 2. In 1872 and 1873, a quantity of spectacles made of glass and steel were imported at New York,' upon which t
Arthur v. Stephani
Arthur v. Stephani. 1. Eor-tariff purposes. Congress has at all times, since the passage of the act of May 2,1792 (1 Stat. 259), intended to preserve’ the distinction between “chocolate” and “confectionery.” 2. Chocolate, eo nomine, is, by
Arthur v. Zimmerman
Arthur v. Zimmerman. ■ 1. Tlie distinction between “ cotton braids ” and * other manufactures of cotton ’ not otherwise provided for,” and “ hat braids,” has been established and recognized by Congress by the acts of March 2, 1861 (12 Stat.
Arthur v. Unkart
Arthur v. Unkart. 1. In 1873, certain gloves, commerce illy known as “ silk plaited gloves,” or “ patent gloves,” made on frames and manufactured in part óf silk and in part -of cotton, cotton being the component part of chief value, were i
Arthur v. Lahey
Arthur v. Lahey. 1. The rules, that for the purpose of the tariff: laws the commercial designation of an article among traders and importers, when clearly established, fixes its character, and that when Congress has designated an article by
Arthur v. Morrison
Arthur v. Morrison. 1. Veils manufactured of silk, and commercially known as “crape veils,” and not otherwise, do not fall within the enumerating clause of the eighth section of the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat.*210), whereby “silk veils”
Davidson v. New Orleans
Davidson v. New Orleans. An assessment of certain real estate in New Orleans for draining the swamps bf that city was resisted in the State courts, and by writ of error brought here, on the ground that the proceeding deprives the owner of h
King v. Pardee
King v. Pardee. 1. In Pennsylvania, a resulting trust in land, if not sought to he enforced for a period of twenty-one years, and not reaffirmed and continued, will, under ordinary circumstances, he extinguished. 2. That rule is especially
McAllister v. Kuhn
McAllister v. Kuhn. 1. Upon .a writ of error to reverse a judgment by default, such defects in the declaration or complaint as could have been taken advantage of before judgment by general demurrer may be brought under review. 2. If the jud
Insurance Co. v. McCain
Insurance Company v. McCain. 1 An insurance company cannot hold oi^t a person as its agent, and then disavow responsibility for his acts. Persons 'dealing with him in the particular business for which he was appointed have a right to rely u
Meister v. Moore
Meister v. Moore. 1. A marriage valid at common law is valid, notwithstanding the statutes of the State where it is contracted prescribe directions respecting its formation and solemnization, unless they contain express words of nullity. 2.
Tennessee v. Sneed
Tennessee v. Sneed. 1. The legislature of a State do.es: not.impair- the obligation of a contract by-enlarging, limiting, or altering the modes of proceeding for enforcing it, provided that the remedy be not withheld, nor embarrassed with c
Turnpike Co. v. Illinois
Turnpike Company v. Illinois. 1. By analogy to the rule of the common law, that a grant to a natural person, without words of inheritance, creates only an estate for his life, a grant of a franchise, without words of perpetuity, to a corpor
Cromwell v. County of Sac
Cromwell v. County of Sac. County of Sac v. Cromwell. 1. An overdue and unpaid coupon for interest, attached to a municipal bond which has several years to run, does not render the bond and the subsequently maturing coupons dishonored paper
United States v. Clark
United States v. Clark. 1. When the Court'of Claims, sends here as part of its finding all the. evidence on which a fact essential to the judgment there rendered was found, from which it appears that there was no legal evidence to establish
United States v. State Bank
United States v. State Bank. 1 Where a trust-fund has been perverted, the cestui que trust can follow it at law' . as far as it can be traced. 2. The United States cannot, against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gon
Jones v. United States
Jones v. United States. 1. In an executory contract for the manufacture of goods, and their delivery on a specified day, no right of property passes to the vendee; and, time being of the essence of the contract, he is not hound to accept an
Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company. 1. The powers 'conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and to establish post-offices and post-roads, are not confined to
Alexandria v. Fairfax
Alexandria v. Fairfax. 1. Every corporation has officers, who speak and act for it by authority ol law; and some one of them, either by an express statutory provision, or by the nature of his functions, is the proper person on whom the proc
United States v. County of Clark
United States v. County of Clark. 1. A mandamus enforces the exercise of an existing'pow'er, but does not confer po.wer upon those to whom it is directed. 2. Where bonds were not issued prior .to Jan. 1, 1874, by a county court in Missouri,
Yeatman v. Savings Institution
Yeatman v. Savings Institution. 1. Except where, within a prescribed period before the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, an attachment has been sued out against the property of the bankrupt, or where his disposition of his property
United States v. Moore
United States v. Moore. 1., TKe words, “ after date of appointment ” and “ from such áate,” which occur in sect. 1556 of the Revised Statutes, fixing the annual pay of passed assistant-surgeons of the navy, refer not to the original entry o
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.