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
Wolf v. Stix
Wolf v. Stix. 1. If goods sold by a debtor with intent to defraud his creditors are attached as his property in a chancery suit to recover a debt and set aside the- sale, which is brought against him and the purchaser, and the latter, with
National Bank v. Matthews
National Bank v. Matthews. A. executed a promissory note to B., and, to secure the payment thereof, a deed of trust of lands, which was in effect a mortgage with a power of sale thereto annexed. A national bank, on the security of the note
States v. Union Pacific Railroad
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. 1. The act of March 3,1873 (17 Stat. 509), is a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power. Congress, by requiring the Attorney-General to bring a suit in equity in the name of th
States v. Sherman
United States v. Sherman. Where, under sect. 8 of the act of July 28,1866 (14 Stat. 329), the court grants a certificate that there was probable cause for the acts done by an otfieer of the United States, for which the judgment was rendered
Railway Co. v. Loftin
Railway Company v. Loftin. 1. The act of the General Assembly of Arkansas of Jan. 12, 1853, incorporating the Cairo and Fulton Bailroad Company, and exempting for ever its capital stock and dividends from taxation, does not so exempt the la
Barnet v. National Bank
Barnet v. National Bank. 1. In a suit by a national bank against all the parties to a bill of exchange discounted by it, to recover the amount thereof, the assignees of the acceptor — the latter having made an assignment for the benefit of
Hendrie v. Sayles
Hendrie v. Sayles. Where, before the issue of letters-patent therefor, a party assigns his invention, and letters are lawfully issued to the assignee in his own name, the latter is entitled, where the instrument of assignment does not show
Railroad Co. v. Commissioners
Railroad Company v. Commissioners. 1. In Nebraska, no demand for taxes is required, but it is the duty of every person subject to taxation to attend at the office of the county treasurer and make payment. 2. Certain lands in that State, the
Hooper v. Robinson
Hooper v. Robinson. 1. A policy upon a cargo in the name of A., “on account of whom it may concern,” or with other equivalent terms, will inure to the interest of the party for whom it was intended by A., provided he at the time of effectin
De Treville v. Smalls
De Treville v. Smalls. 1. Where lands have been sold for an unpaid direct tax, the tax-sale certificate is, under the act of Feb. 6, 1863 (12 Stat. 640), prima facie evidence not only of a regular sale, but of all the antecedent facts which
Brick v. Brick
Brick v. Brick. 1. Parol evidence is admissible in equity to show that a certificate of stock issued to a party as owner was delivered to him as security for a loan of money. A court of equity will look beyond the terms of an instrument to
Reed v. McIntyre
Reed v. McIntyre. A., in due course of legal proceedings, recovered, March 14, judgment against B., a merchant who, the preceding day, had made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors. An execution was forthwith s
Airhart v. Massieu
Airhart v. Massieu. 1. A Mexican was not, by the revolution which resulted in the independence of Texas, or by her Constitution of March 17,1836, or her laws subsequently enacted, divested of his title to lands in that State, but he retaine
States v. Thompson
United States v. Thompson. The United States, whether named in a State statute of limitations or not, is not bound thereby; and when it sues in one of its own courts, such a statute is not within the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789,
Railroad Co. v. Varnell
Railroad Company v. Varnell. Exceptions to the charge of the court which are in general terms, and do not clearly and specifically point out the objectionable part of it, cannot be sustained as a ground for reversing the judgment. Error to
Harkness v. Hyde
Harkness v. Hyde. 1. Process from a district court of Idaho cannot be served upon a defendant on an Indian reservation in that Territory. 2. Illegality in the service of process by which jurisdiction is to be obtained is not waived by the s
Amy v. Dubuque
Amy v. Dubuque. The Statute of Limitations of Iowa begins to run against coupon interest warrants from the time they respectively mature, although they remain attached to the bond which represents the principal debt. Error to the Circuit Co
Mining Co. v. Tarbet
Mining Company v. Tarbet. 1. Under an act entitled “ An Act granting the right of way to ditch and canal companies over the public lands, and for other purposes,” approved July 20', 1866 (14 Stat. 251), as well as under that entitled “An Ac
Jennison v. Kirk
Jennison v. Kirk. 1. The ninth section of the act of Congress of July 26, 1866, “granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes,” enacted, " that whenever, by priority of possession, rights
States v. Irvine
United States v. Irvine. An indictment against A., found Sept. 15, 1875, charged that on Dec. 24,1870, B. demanded of him the sum of $525, which he as her agent and attorney had collected and received from the United States on account of a
States v. Benecke
United States v. Benecke. 1. An indictment against A., found Sept. 11,1875, charged that in March, 1868, he, as agent and attorney of B. and C., did withhold, and continued thereafter to withhold from them, certain money which he, as their
the "Abbotsford"
The “Abbotsford.” 1. Under the act of Feb. 16,18.75, which took effect May 1 of that year, entitled “ An Act to facilitate the disposition of cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, and for other purposes” (18 Stat. 315), the findi
Carr v. States
Carr v. United States. 1. Where the city of San Francisco, prior to the adoption of the Van Ness ordinance, made a conveyance of certain lots within the city to the United States, and another party sets up a claim to them, under the ordinan
States v. Perot
United States v. Perot. 1. Spanish grants made in Texas for lands in the “ Neutral Ground,” east of the Sabine, from 1790 to 1800, are valid. 2. The Mexican league applicable to grants of such lands, being a square of 6000 varas on each sid
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.