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
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
Ex parte Perry
Ex parte Perry. This court will not by mandamus compel an inferior court to.reverse a decision made in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Petition for mandamus. The petitioners filed their libel against the ship “ Civilfa ” and the steam-tug
Railway Co. v. Renwick
Railway Company v. Renwick. The second section of the act of the General Assembly of Iowa, entitled “ An Act in relation to riparian owners on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers,” approved March 18, 1874, is not in conflict with any statut
Jifkins v. Sweetzer
Jifkins v. Sweetzer. 1. Where the Supreme Court of a State reversed, on appeal, a decree dismissing, upon a final hearing, the complainant’s bill, and remanded the cause with instructions to refer it to a master to state the accounts betwee
Mining Co. v. Consolidated Mining Co.
Mining Company v. Consolidated Mining Company. 1. The grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections of public land to the State of California for school.purposes, made by the act of March 3,1853 (10 Stat. 246), was not intended to' cover
Potter v. National Bank
Potter v. National Bank. In an action against an executor in his representative capacity, A., who was interested in the issue but not a party thereto, was, against the objection of the defendant, introduced as a witness by the plaintiff, an
Seward v. Corneau
Seward v. Corneau. A bond is not sufficient for the purposes of either an appeal to' this court or a supersedeas, if the obligors are not thereby bound for the payment of costs, should the appellant fail to make his plea good. Motion to dis
Graham v. Railroad Co.
Graham v. Railroad Company. 1. Where a corporation, solvent at the time, and having no actual intent to defraud creditors, disposes of its lands for an inadequate consideration or by a voluntary conveyance, its subsequent creditors- cannot
Langford v. Monteith
Langford v. Monteith. 1. Where an act of Congress admitting á State into the Union, or organizing a territorial government, provides, in accordance with a treaty stipulation, that the lands in the possession of an Indian tribe shall not be
Railroad Co. v. Mississippi
Railroad Company v. Mississippi. 1. A petition for la mandamus, was filed in one of her courts by the State of Mississippi to. compel a railroad company, a corporation existing under thé laws of that State, to remove a stationary bridge whi
French v. Wade
French v. Wade. 1. A.’s lands in Louisiana were, May 6, 1865, duly forfeited to the United States by a decree of the proper court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 589), as modi
Ball v. Langles
Ball v. Langles. 1. Reissued letters-patent No. 4026, granted June 14, 1870, to Hosea Ball for a new and useful improvement in ovens, are void, inasmuch as they contain new matter, and are for an invention different from that exhibited in t
Tiernan v. Rinker
Tiernan v. Rinker. 1. An act' of the legislature of Texas, entitled “ An Act regulating taxation,” approved June 3, 1873, provides in its third section that “there shall be levied on and collected from every firm or association of persons .
Banking Ass'n v. Insurance Ass'n
Banking Association v. Insurance Association. 1. An appeal will be dismissed wlien it appears from the record, taken as a. whole, that the amount actually in controversy is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction’. ' 2. Gray v. Blanch
Railway Co. v. Heck
Railway Company v. Heck. Neither the charge, of the court below, if no exception was taken thereto before the final submission of the case to the jury, nor the granting or the refusing a new trial, is. subject to review here. Error to the C
Schoonmaker v. Gilmore
Schoonmaker v. Gilmore. The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of'collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River..' Motion to dismiss a writ of.
Pearce v. Mulford
Pearce v. Mulford. 1. To entitle an improvement to protection under the patent laws, it. must he ■the product of the exercise of the inventive faculties, and involve something beyond what is obvious to persons skilled in the art to which it
Giddings v. Insurance Co.
Giddings v. Insurance Company. Tlie charter of A., a mutual life insurance company, provides that “ every person who shall become a member of the corporation,-by effecting insurance therein, shall, the first time he effects insurance and be
Brooks v. Railroad Co.
Brooks v. Railroad Company. A petition for a rehearing cannot be filed after the, term at which the judgment was rendered. Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing. This case was, on appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Stat
Parks v. Booth
Parks v. Booth. T. Reissued letters-pátent No. 1826, granted Nov. 29, 1864, to Jonathan L. Booth for a new and useful improvement in grain-separators, áre.valid. 2. A specification describing an invention consisting merely of' a new combina
Menasha v. Hazard
Menasha v. Hazard. 1. A town in Wisconsin, being thereunto authorized by law, subscribed for stock in a railroad company, and issued its bonds in payment therefor, each reciting that "it “ shall be valid only when it 'is thereon duly certif
Gay v. Alter
Gay v. Alter. By the law of Louisiana, a party to a synallagmatic contract has no right to rescind it by reason of the failure of performance by the other party, unless he returns to the latter what .was received from him, so as .to put him
Kirk v. Hamilton
Kirk v. Hamilton. 1. In 1859, M. & Co., judgment creditors of A., filed their bill in the Circuit Court .of the District of Columbia, against him and others, setting forth that he had, without consideration arid with intent to defraud his.
Casey v. Adams
Casey v. Adams Actions, local in their nature, may be maintained in the proper State court against a national banking association in a county or a city other than that where it is established. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Loui
United States v. Peck
United States v. Peck. Peck v. United States. 1. Parol evidence of the surrounding circumstances is admissible to show the subject-matter of a contract. 2. The conduct of one party to a contract which prevents the other from performing his
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.