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
Barney v. Dolph
Barney v. Dolph. After the passage of the act of July 17,1854 (10 Stat. 306), amendatory of the act of Sept. 27, 1850 (9 id. 496), commonly known as the Donation Act, a husband and wife, who, by reason of their residence and cultivation, we
Robertson v. Cease
Robertson v. Cease. 1 Where the jurisdiction of a court of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, and not simply their residence, must be shown by the record. 2 The ruling in Railway Company v. Rams
Stacey v. Emery
Stacey v. Emery. A., a collector of internal revenue, seized certain whiskey belonging to B., for the condemnation and forfeiture whereof proceedings were afterwards, at the suit of the United States, brought in the proper court. The court
Davie v. Briggs
Davie v. Briggs. 1 A person who for seven years has not been heard of by those who, had he been alive, would naturally have heard of him, is presumed to be dead; but the law raises no presumption as to the precise time of his death. 2. The
Howland v. Blake
Howland v. Blake. A., to secure the payment of money borrowed from B., mortgaged land- to the latter, who commenced proceedings in foreclosure, and obtained a decree under which he purchased the land, and received a deed therefor from the p
Ford v. Surget
Ford v. Surget. X. The court reaffirms the doctrine in Williams v. Bruffy (96 V. S. 176), that an enactment oí the Confederate States, enforced as a law of one of the States composing that confederation, is a statute of such State, within t
Gaussen v. United States
Gaussen v. United States. 1. The United States, in asserting its rights, is not barred by the laches of its officers or agents. 2. Duties imposed upon an officer, different in their nature from those which he was required to perform at the
Newcomb v. Wood
Newcomb v. Wood. 1. The power, with the consent of the parties, to appoint referees, and refer to them a pending cause, is incident to all judicial administration, where the right exists to ascertain the facts as well as to pronounce the la
Hosmer v. Wallace
Hosmer v. Wallace. 1. Pending a proceeding in a tribunal of the United States, for the confirmation of a claim to lands in California, under a Mexican grant, no portion of them embraced within the boundaries designated in the grant is open
Cook v. Pennsylvania
Cook v. Pennsylvania. 1. A tax laid bj a State on the amount of sales of goods made by an auetioneei is a tax on the goods so sold. 2. The statute of Pennsylvania of May 20, 1853, modified by that of April 9 1859, requiring every auctioneer
Gray v. Blanchard
Gray v. Blanchard. A writ of error sued out upon a judgment on a money demand will be dismissed where it affirmatively appears from the record, taken as a whole, that the amount actually in dispute is not sufficient to give this court juris
Railway Co. v. Sayles
Railway Company v. Sayles. 1. A party who invents a new machine never used before, and procures letters-patent therefor, acquires a monopoly as against all merely formal variations thereof; but -if the advance towards the thing desired is g
United States v. Claflin
United States v. Claflin. 1. An action of debt cannot be maintained by the United States to recover the penalties prescribed by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved July 18,1866 (14 Stat. 179), entitled “An Act to prevent smug
Welch v. Cook
Welch v. Cook. 1. The act of the legislative assembly of the District of Columbia of June 26, 1873, exempting from general taxeB for ten years thereafter such real and personal property as might be actually employed within said District for
Coleman v. Tennessee
Coleman v. Tennessee. 1. The thirtieth section of the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat..731), entitled "An Act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes,” did not make the jurisdiction of the military tribunals
Patterson v. Kentucky
Patterson v. Kentucky. 1. Where, by the application of the invention or- discovery for which letters-patent have been granted by the United States, tangible property comes into existence, its use is, to the same extent as that of any other
Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Co. v. Kansas Pacific Railway Co.
Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company. 1. Subject to certain reservations and exceptions, the act of Congress of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), “ to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph l
Spofford v. Kirk
Spofford v. Kirk. A. employed B. to collect a claim against the United States. Before its allowance, or the issue of a warrant for its payment, he drew, in favor of C., an order on B., payable out of any moneys coming into his hands on acco
Keith v. Clark
Keith v. Clark. 1. Where a caBe has been decided in an inferior court of a State on a single point which would give this court jurisdiction, it will not be presumed here that the Supreme Court of the State decided it on some other ground no
Hill v. National Bank
Hill v. National Bank. A., the owner of a parcel of land, consisting of four adjoining lots, three of them having buildings thereon, conveyed it in fee to B. in trust, to secure the payment of certain notes to C. He subsequently used the la
Settlemier v. Sullivan
Settlemier v. Sullivan. In ejectment for lands in Oregon, the defendant claimed title under a sheriff’s deed, pursuant to a sale of them under execution sued out upon a judgment by default rendered in 1861 against A. in the State court. A c
Stoll v. Pepper
Stoll v. Pepper. If a distiller uses material for distillation in excess of the estimated capacity of his distillery, according to the survey made and returned under the provisions of the law regulating that subject, but, in the regular cou
Mimmack v. United States
Mimmack v. United States. Charges of drunkenness on duty having been preferred against A., a captain in the army, he proposed that if they should not be acted upon he would place his resignation in the hands of his commanding officer, to be
Kendig v. Dean
Kendig v. Dean. A., a citizen of Tennessee, filed his hill in the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in that State, against B., a citizen of Ohio. A corporation created by the laws of Tennessee was an indispensable party to any rel
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.