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
1878 Cases
210 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
Ingersoll v. Bourne
INGERSOLL v. BOURNE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE • UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 949. Submitted November 25, 1878. Decided December 2, 1878. An appeal to this court will not lie from the judgment of a
Hagar v. California
HAGAR v. CALIFORNIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 898. Submitted October 15, 1877. Decided November 12, 1878. This court has no jurisdiction over a judgment of a state court when it does not appear that a Feder
Union Pacific Railroad v. United States
SINKING-FUND CASES. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States. Central Pacific Railroad Company v. Gallatin. 1. So far as it establishes in the treasury of the United States a sinking-fund, the act of Congress approved May 7,1878 (20
Block v. Commissioners
Block v. Commissioners. Commissioners v. Block. 1. A., tlie lawful holder of coupons detached from bonds issued by a county in Kansas, applied to a court of competent jurisdiction for a mandamus to compel the county commissioners to pay suc
Lyons v. Munson
Lyons v. Munson. 1. The ruling in Orleans v. Platt (supra, p. 676) as to the jurisdiction of the county judge in New York to decide upon the application made to him by the taxpayers of a town for an order that its bonds bo issued to enable
Orleans v. Platt
Orleans v. Platt. 1. Where, upon the undisputed facts of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it is not error for the court to instruct the jury to find for him. 2. Where the testimony is all one way, a party is not entitled to i
Perris v. Hexamer
Perris v. Hexamer. The right of an author or a publisher, under the copyright law, is infringed only when other persons produce a substantial copy of the whole or of a material part of the book or other thing for which he secured a copyrigh
Lyon v. Pollock
Lyon v. Pollock. 1.. A., at the commencement of the late rebellion, owned property in San Antonio, Texas, consisting principally of real estate and stock in a gas company. Apprehending that his life was in danger in consequence of his avowe
Evanston v. Gunn
Evanston v. Gunn. I. A party specifying his objection to the admission of evidence must he considered as waiving all others, or as conceding that there is no ground upon which they can he maintained. 2 The record kept by a person employed i
Spring Co. v. Edgar
Spring Company v. Edgar. 1. This was an action against the proprietor of a park, to recover for injuries sustained by A. from an attack by a male deer which, with other deer, was permitted to roam in the park, and which the declaration char
Transportation Co. v. Chicago
Transportation Company v. Chicago. 1. That which the law authorizes cannot be a nuisance such as to give a common-law right of action. 2. A municipal corporation, authorized by law to improve a street by building on the line thereof a bridg
National Bank v. Case
National Bank v. Case. 1. A party' who, by way of pledge or collateral security for a loan of money, accepts stock of a national bank which he causes to be transferred to him self on its books, incurs immediate liability as a stockholder, a
Commissioners v. Sellew
Commissioners v. Sellew. A county in Kansas is a body politic, whose powers are exercised by a board of county commissioners, and when it is sued, process must be served upon the clerk of the board. Where, therefore, a mandamus was awarded
Cannon v. Pratt
Cannon v. Pratt. 1. The doctrine in Stringfellow v. Cain (supra, p. 610) reaffirmed. 2. The Probate Court of Utah has jurisdiction to determine the conflicting rights of claimants to lots forming part of the lands in that Territory entered
Stringfellow v. Cain
Stringfellow v. Cain. 1. Under the act entitled “ An Act concerning the practice in territorial courts, and appeals therefrom,” approved April 7,1874 (18 Stat. pt. 3, p. 27), the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the judgment or the
National Bank v. Bank of Commerce
National Bank v. Bank of Commerce. Where a judgment was rendered October 5, and the present term commenced October 15, and the writ of error and citation were returnable on the “second • Monday in October next,” the court, March 17, grants,
Whitney v. Cook
Whitney v. Cook. 1. Under amended Rule 6 the plaintiff in error, or the appellant, may, with a motion to dismiss the writ of error or the appeal, unite a motion to affirm the judgment or the decree; hut where there is no color of right to a
United States v. Ford
WHISKEY CASES. United States v. Ford ; United States v. Ford ; United States v. One Still ; United States v. Fifty Barrels of Distilled Spirits ; United States v. Three Hundred and Nineteen Barrels of Whiskey; United States v. Four Hundred
Alvord v. United States
Alvord v. United States. 1. The court announces its determination to enforce rigidly the rules requiring causes to be ready for hearing when they are reached. 2. Counsel who enter their appearance under the requirements of Rule 9 will be he
Terhune v. Phillips
Terhune v. Phillips. The court will take judicial notice of a thing which is in the common knowledge and use of the people through the country. It therefore.holes that reissued letters-patent No. 5748, granted to Matthias Terhune Jan. 27, 1
United States v. County of Macon
United States v. County of Macon. 1. Where the statute authorizing a county to subscribe for stock in a railroad company, and issue its bonds therefor, limits its power to provide for the payment of them to an annual special tax of one-twen
Pence v. Langdon
Pence v. Langdon. 1. The jury should not be instructed to find for the defendant, unless the evidence is such as to leave no doubt that it is their duty to return a verdict in his favor. 2. The notice of the rescission of a contract is not
Elliott v. Railroad Co.
Elliott v. Railroad Company. 1. The court reaffirms its ruling in Erskine v. Milwaukee. 8f St. Paid Railroad Co. (94 U. S. 619), that the forfeiture of §1,000 is the only penalty to which a corporation is liable for default, under sect. 122
McBurney v. Carson
McBurney v. Carson. 1. Where a suit in equity, to enforce a Hen on property within the district, was pending at the time of the passage of the act of June 1,1872 (17 Stat. 196), and a party who was not an inhabitant of, or found within, the
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.