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
United States v. Two Hundred Barrels of Whiskey
United States v. Two Hundred Barrels of Whiskey. 1. Distilled spirits, owned by’and found upon the premises-of a rectifier or wholc- . sale liquor-dealer, cannot be seized as forfeited to the United States, under sect. 96 of the “ Act impos
Eddy v. Dennis
Eddy v. Dennis. Dennis v. Eddy. 1. In reissued letters-patent No. 1515, granted to Paul Dennis Aug. 4, 1863, for a new and useful improvement in cultivators, the second claim in the specification is for a combination of the beam and the mou
West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Shawnee County Bank
West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Shawnee County Bank. The cashier of a bank is not, by reason of ,his official position, presumed to have the power to bind it as an accommodation indorser on his individual note; and the payee who fails to pro
Morrow v. Whitney
Morrow v. Whitney. 1. When an act of Congress, confirming a claim to land, contains a proviso that the confirmation shall not include any lands occupied by the United States for military purposes, the fact of such occupancy can be establish
Insurance Companies v. Thompson
Insurance Companies v. Thompson. Certain insurance companies insured T. & Co. against loss or damage by fire “ upon whiskey, their own or held by them on a commission, including government tax thereon for Which they may be liable.” They wer
Clark v. United States
Clark v. United States. 1. The act of Congress approved June. 2,1862 (12 Stat. 411), which makes it the duty of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Interior to require every contract made by them severa
United States v. Smith
United States v. Smith. The act of Congress approved June 7, 1872 (17 .Stat. 262), does not apply to the shipping of seamen upon vessels engaged only in and for voyages coastwise between Atlantic port's of the United States. ' Certificate o
United States v. The "Grace Lothrop"
United States v. The “Grace Lothrop.” The agreement, in writing or in print, which, with certain exceptions, the master of a vessel, bound from a port in the United States to any foreign port, is ’ required, before proceeding on his voyage,
Beecher v. Wetherby
Beecher v. Wetherby. 3. It was an unalterable condition of the admission of Wisconsin into the Union, that, of tlie public lands in the State, section 16 in every township, which, had not been sold or otherwise disposed of, should be grante
Hall v. DeCuir
Hall v. DeCuir. The Supreme Court of Louisiana having decided that an act of the General Assembly, approved Eeb'. 23, 1869, entitled “ An Act to enforce the thirteenth article of the Constitution of this State, and to regulate the licenses
Brown v. Spofford
Brown v. Spofford. 1. Where, at the time of making and indorsing a promissory note, a written contract in relation thereto is entered into by the parties, paroj testimony varying or contradicting its terms is not admissible. 2. The court re
Railroad Co. v. Husen
Railroad Company v. Husen. 1. The statute of Missouri which prohibits driving or conveying any Texas, Mexican, or Indian cattle into the State, between the first day of March . and the first day of November in each year, is in conflict with
Pound v. Turck
Pound v. Turck. 1. In the absence of legislation by Congress bearing on the case, a statute of a State which authorizes the erection of a dam across a navigable river which is wholly within her limits is not unconstitutional. 2. A party is
Williams v. Morris
Williams v. Morris. 1. Under the laws of Maryland prevailing in the District of Columbia, an interest in lands made by livery and seisin only, or by parol, except leases not exceeding the term of three years, has only the force and effect o
Railroad Co. v. Jones
Railroad Company v. Jones. 1. Negligence may consist in either failing to do what, under the circumstances, a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have done, or in doing what he would not have done. 2. A. was one of a party Of men em
Beard v. Burts
Beard v. Burts. 1. The acts of Congress, respectively approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 756), and May 11, 1866 (14 id. 46), extend protection to all persons for act3 they committed in subordination to the military authorities engaged in cond
Insurance Co. v. Davis
Insurance Company v. Davis. 1. New York Life Insurance Company v. Statham et al., 93 U. S. 24, reaffirmed. 2. Where, as in this ease, the legal effect of a policy of insurance is that the premiums shall be' paid to. the company at- its domi
Turnbull v. Payson
Turnbull v. Payson. 1. The court again decides that, where a corporation is adjudged a bankrupt, the , proper District Court of the United States, in order to provide means for pile payment of the debts of the corporation, may direct an.ass
United States v. Gillis
United States v. Gillis. 1. The act entitled “An Act to prevent frauds upon the treasury of the United States,” approved Eeb. 26,1853 (10 Stat. 170), embraces every claim against the government, however arising, of whatever, nature, and whe
Briges v. Sperry
Briges v. Sperry. 1. Where the record shows that a suit brought in a State court was, on the petition of the defendant, and by reason of the character of the parties, duly removed 'to the proper Circuit Court of the-United States, the juris
Thompson v. Maxwell
Thompson v. Maxwell. 1. None but parties and privies can have a bill of review; and it will not lie where the decree in question was passed by consent. 2. A decree for carrying out a settlement and compromise of a suit, if obtained without
Insurance Co. v. Higginbotham
Insurance Company v. Higginbotham. 1. A policy of life insurance, dated July 16, 1869, stipulated for the payment of' the annual premium, on or before twelve o’clock on the sixteenth day of July in every year; and provided that, in case it
County of Cass v. Shores
County of Cass v. Shores. The order of the county court of Cass County,’“Mo., entered upon its recoras Oct. 20, 1871 (infra, p. 377), authorized the execution of the bonds sued on, and they are, in the hands of an innocent holder for value,
County of Cass v. Jordan
County of Cass v. Jordan. The court adheres to its rulings in County of Cass v. Johnston, supra, p. 360.' Error to the Circuit Court of the United States^ for the Western District of Missouri. The coupons sued on by Jordan are from bonds is
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.