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
1881 Cases
233 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
Hearst v. Halligan
HEARST v. HALLIGAN. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 6. Submitted November 14, 1881. Decided December 5, 1881. Affirmed on the facts. Mr. Jacob Klein, Mr. Samuel Knox and Mr. W. M.
Levy v. Dangel
LEVY v. DANGEL. error to the supreme court of THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO. No. 72. Submitted November 4, 1881. Decided November 14, 1881. Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 TJ. S- 120, followed. Mr. Fillmore Beall for plaintiff in error. Mr. George Ainsli
Roberts v. Bolles
ROBERTS v. BOLLES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 48. Submitted October 20, 1881. Decided October 25, 1881. Boberts v. Bolles, 101 Ú. S. 119, followed. Mr. Andreio J. Bell for plai
The "Mamie"
The “Mamie.” Where a petition of the owner of a vessel claiming the benefit of the limited liability provided by sect. 4283 of the Revised Statutes was rejected' and an appeal taken, — Held, that this court has jurisdiction where the aggreg
Paper-Bag Machine Co. v. Nixon
PAPER-BAG CASES. Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Nixon. Nixon v. Paper-Bag Machine Company. 1. A party, having the absolute ownership of a patented machine, has the right either to use it during the extended term of the letters-patent, or t.o
Carite v. Trotot
Carite v. Trotot. 1. The seizure arid sale under éxeeutory process, authorized by art. 732 ol the Code of Practice of Louisiana, vest in the purchaser, as against the owner and subsequent incumbrancers, an absolute title to the mortgaged la
Lewis v. Commissioners
Lewis v. Commissioners. 1. The act of Kansas approved March 2,1872 (Laws of Kansas, 1872, p. 110), does not require that the bonds issued pursuant to its provisions by a county in aid of works of internal improvement shall in all cases be d
Ralls County Court v. United States
Ralls County Court v. United States. 1. Where judgment has been duly obtained in Missouri against a county upon coupons detached from its bonds, no defence which questions their validity can be pleaded to a mandamus commanding the county-co
County of Ralls v. Douglass
County of Ralls v. Douglass. 1. County bonds issued in Missouri by a defacto county court, which are sealed with the seal and signed by the de facto president thereof, cannot, when held by bona-fide purchasers, be impeached by showing that
Flanders v. Seelye
Flanders v. Seelye. Cotton seized under color of the act Of March 12, 1863, c, 20, was by A., the deputy general agent .of the treasury, consigned, subject to freight and charges, to B., supervising special agent of the treasury at New Orle
Marsh v. McPherson
Marsh v. McPherson. 1. The recital in the contract (infra, p. 711), that the vendors “ hereby deliver said machines at the places named in the list ” to the vendee, passes to. him the title and right of possession, but does not prove a deli
Stevenson v. Texas Railway Co.
Stevenson v. Texas Railway Company. 1. Judgment creditors who cause an execution to be levied upon lands of the defendant in .Texas acquire a lien superior to that of his unrecorded mort.gage, whereof, at the date of the levy, they had no n
Wurts v. Hoagland
Wurts v. Hoagland. Iron Company v. Hoagland. 1; The time within which a-writ of error mast be served, in order that it may ■ operate-as a supersedeas, must be computed from the date of the judgment which is the subject of review. 2. The wri
Ex parte Mason
Ex parte Mason. 1. Where, by a general military court-martial, a person then in the military service of the United States was found guilty of an offence, and sentenced to be discharged from that service, and be imprisoned at bard labor in t
Swift Co. v. United States
Swift Company v. United States. 1. Under the act of July 14, 1870, c. 255, the proprietor of friction-matches, who' furnished his own- dies, was entitled to a commission of ten per cent, payable in money upon the amount of adhesive stamps o
Harvey v. United States
Harvey v. United States. 1. .The rules touching the effect of the findings of fact by the Court of Claims do not apply to the'hearing of an appeal from its adjudication on a claim whereof it took cognizance.under a special act of Congress,
Post v. Supervisors
Post v. Supervisors. Amoskeag Bank v. Ottawa. 1. Whether a seeming act of the legislature is or is hot a law, is a judicial question to be determined by the court, and not a question of fact to be tried by a jury. 2. The construction unifor
Corbin v. County of Black Hawk
Corbin v. County of Black Hawk. 1. As a suit to compel the specific performance of a contract, or to enforce its other stipulations, is a suit to recover the contents of a chose in action, it was not, under sect. 629, Rev: Stat., maintainab
Ex parte Boyd
Ex parte Boyd. 1. A party in whose favor judgment is.rendered in a' common-law cause, by a court of the United States sitting in the State of New’ York, is, in order to reach the property of the' judgment debtor, entitled to the remedy prov
Upton v. McLaughlin
Upton v. McLaughlin. 1. Section 5057 of the Revised Statutes (infra, p 642) dees not, in the cases therein mentioned, declare that the court; wherein the suit is brought more than two years after the cause of action accrued, shall not have
Venable v. Richards
Venable v. Richards. 1. Section 643 of the Revised. Statutes, providing for removal from State courts of civil suits against revenue officers, is nofsuperseded by the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137. . 2. The tax on snuff is thirty-two cents p
The " Potomac"
The “ Potomac.” 1. Upon a libel in admiralty for a collision, the libellant maybe allowed dam- • ages for the loss of the use of his vessel while laid up. to repair the injuries thereby ".offered; and if at the time of the collision she was
Leathers v. Blessing
Leathers v. Blessing. 1. The term “ torts,” when used in reference to admiralty jurisdiction, embrace's not only wrongs committed by direct force, but such as are suffered in consequence of negligence or malfeasance, where the remedy at com
Guaranty Co. v. Board of Liquidation
Guaranty Company v. Board of Liquidation. The State of Louisiana provided for funding her bonds at reduced rateé and on certain terms.. A subsequent Statute-prohibits the funding of all questionable obligations, among whieh are specially de
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.