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
1880 Cases
225 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
Auffm'ordt v. Rasin
Auffm’ordt v. Rasin. 1. A., with a View of giving preference to B., a creditor, transferred to him, NoV.-' 15, 1873, certain .securities. B. accepted them with knowledge that A. was insolvent. Proceedings in -bankruptcy were instituted agai
Cramer v. Arthur
Cramer v. Arthur. 1. The valuation of foreign standard coins, which the act of March 3, 1873, c. 268 (17 Stat. 602; Rev. Stat., sect. 3564), requires the director of the mint to estimate annually, and the Secretary of the Treasury to prdcla
United States v. Chouteau
United States v. Chouteau. 1. In an action by tbe United States upon a bond executed by A., a distiller, and his sureties, the breaches of the condition assigned in' the declaration'or complaint were, first, that by omitting to' make certai
Springer v. United States
Springer v. United States. 1. Certain lands of A. were distrained and sold by reason of his refusal to pay the income tax assessed against him. under the act of June 30, 1864 ,(13 Stat. 218), as amended by the act of March 3, ,1865 (id. 469
Bennett v. Railroad Co.
Bennett v. Railroad Company. The owner or occupant of land who induces or leads others to come upon it for a lawful purpose.is liable in damages to them — they using due care — for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or
Edwards v. United States
Edwards v. United States. A. sued out arwrit of error returnable to the October Term, 1877. The return was duly made, the transcript of the record lodged in the clerx's office in September of that year,- and a citation issued and served in
Wilson v. McNamee
Wilson v. McNamee. 1. An objection not taken in the court below pannot be considered here. 2. The pilot laws of the State of New York are not in conflict'with the Constitution of the United States. Ex parte McNiel (13 Wall. 230) and Cooley
George v. Tate
George v. Tate. 1. Where the signature of a firm name to an instrument shows that it waa intended to be the act of all the partners, effect ipust be given to it ac- . cordingly, although only one of them is named in the body of the instrume
Goodman v. Niblack
Goodman v. Niblack. 1. A., who had a contract with the United States, agreed'with B., in 1847, that the latter should perform, it, and that the profits should he equally divided between, them. Thereupon they and. C. executed an instrument i
United States v. Pinson
United States v. Pinson. The account of a delinquent revenue officer or other person accountable for public money, as finally adjusted by the proper officers of the Treasury Depart- . ment, is not admissible as evidence under sect. 886, Eev
Insurance Co. v. Eldredge
Insurance Company v. Eldredge. Where a deed of trust of lands to secure a promissory note was released by the • trustee without the surrender or payment of the note or the express authority of tlie holder'thereof, a subsequent purenaser wit
Lord v. Steamship Co.
Lord v. Steamship Company. 1. While navigating-the high -seas between ports of the same State, a vessel of the United States is, together with the business in which she is engaged-, subject to the regulating ppwer of Congress. 2. Sect. 4283
Wadsworth v. Supervisors
Wadsworth v. Supervisors. The rulings in Aspinwall et ah v. Commissioners of the County of Daviess (22 How. 364) reaffirmed and applied to this case. Appeal from the Circuit Court"of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Meriwether v. Garrett
Meriwether v. Garrett. Upon consideration of the legislation of Tennessee, being chapter 10 of acts of 1879, entitled “ An Act to repeal the charters of certain municipal corporation?, and to remand the territory and inhabitants thereof to
Walker v. Reister
Walker v. Reister. A bill, filed by the assignee in bankruptcy of an insurance company against its former officers and directors, alleges that they had divided among themselves and friends certain bonds belonging to it, arid prays for an ac
Hall v. Law
Hall v. Law. 1. Proceedings for the partition of real estate in.Indiana were instituted in the year 1832, in the Circuit Court of the county -where it is situate. The record consists of an order appointing three commissioners to divide the
Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy
Pennsylvania Company v. Roy. 1. A carrier of passengers -for hire is bound to observe the utmost caution, and is-responsible to them for such injuries received in the course of their transportation as might have been avoided or guarded agai
Swift v. Smith
Swift v. Smith. 1. A party who, before its maturity and for a valuable Consideration, purchases mercantile paper from the apparent owner thereof acquires a right thereto which can only be defeated by proof of bad faith or of actual notice o
McElrath v. United States
McElrath v. United States. 1. An officer of the array or the navy was, June 20, 1866, subject to summary dismissal from the service by order of the President. 2. On the twenty-seventh day of 'June, 1866, the President nominated to the Senat
United States v. Knox
United States v. Knox. 1. Where, in order to discharge the liabilities of an insolvent national banking association, the comptroller of the currency assessed against the several shareholders a sufficient percentage upon the par value of the
Daniels v. Tearney
Daniels v. Tearney. 1. The convention of the State of Virginia passed, April 13,1861, an ordinance entitled “ An Ordinance to provide against the sacrifice of property and to suspend proceedings in certain cases,” whereby, if a debtor, agai
Manufacturing Co. v. Ladd
Manufacturing Company v. Ladd. 1. Where, a bill was filed charging an infringement of reissued letters-patent No. 5154, dated Nov. 19, 1872, which was denied by the- answer, the ourt, in view of the state of the art at the date of the inven
United States v. Schurz
United States v. Schurz. 1. The Supreme Court .of the District of .Columbia is authorized to issue the writ of mandamus as an original process in cases where, by the principles of the common law, the petitioner is entitled to' it. 2. When a
Densmore v. Scofield
Densmore v. Scofield. Reissued letters-patent No. 2261, dated May 29.1866, issued to James Densmore and Amos Densmore for “ a new and useful improved oil-tank ear for carry-. ing petroleum and other like substances in bulk,” are void, — 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.