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
1882 Cases
192 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
United States v. Stone
United States v. Stone. Stone v. United States. 1. Where nil debet is pleaded, it is not error to strike out a notice of special matter to be given in evidence, where evidence of such matter is admissible under the plea. 2. In a suit by the
Youngstown Bank v. Hughes
Youngstown Bank v. Hughes. The value of the matter in dispute, when the jurisdiction of this court depends thereon, must be such as can be ascertained in money, and, if not disclosed by the record, may be shown by affidavits. On motion to d
Ex parte Carll
Ex parte Carll. The reviewing power of this court in a criminal case is, on a writ of habeas carpus, confined to the determination of the question whether the court which sentenced'the prisoner had jurisdiction to try him for the offence wh
Patterson v. Lynde
Patterson v. Lynde. The creditor of a corporation organized under the general laws of Oregon cannot, to recover his debt against it, enforce, by an action at law, the liability of a stockholder upon an unpaid subscription to its capital sto
Clarkson v. Stevens
Clarkson v. Stevens. 1. Where, by a contract for the construction of a ship, the builder is to furnisli the requisite labor and materials, and to receive therefor a sum payable in instalments as the work progresses, this court will not enfo
Parkersburg v. Brown
Parkersburg v. Brown. 1. The act of the legislature of West Virginia, of Dec. 15,1868, c. 118, authorizing the city of Parkersburg to issue its bonds for the purpose of lending the same to persons engaged in manufacturing, is invalid, and t
Branch v. Jesup
Branch v. Jesup. 1. The South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company having power, by its charter, to construct a railroad from Albany to Thomasville, Georgia, and from Thomasville to the Florida line, and to purchase and sell all kinds of pr
Morrill v. Jones
Morrill v. Jones. 1. Animals, specially'imported from beyond the seas for breeding purposes, are not subject to duty. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury has no authority to prescribe a regulation requiring that, before admitting them free, th
Clark v. Keith
Clark v. Keith. . Whatever was determined here on a writ of error cannot be re-examined upon a subsequent writ brought in the same suit. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. Mr. Benjamin J. Lea, Mr. Henry Cooper, and Mr. Ho
Georgia v. Jesup
Georgia v. Jesup. In a foreclosure suit, pending when the lands and property were in possession of a receiver, the State of Georgia, whilst declining to become a party, presented a petition asking that he be required to withdraw from the po
Steel v. Smelting Co.
Steel v. Smelting Company. 1. A patent executed in the required form and by the proper officers, for such a portion of the public domain as is by law subject to sale or other disposal, passes the title thereto, and the finding of the facts
Dodge v. Freedman's Savings & Trust Co.
Dodge v. Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company. Where a mortgage of. lands in the District of Columbia, or a deed of trust in the nature thereof, to secure the payment of money, is foreclosed, sect. 808; Rev. Stat., relating to the District,
Minturn v. United States
Minturn v. United States. 1. An importer of sugars having entered them at the custom-house by a ware- ■ house entry, under sect. 12 of the act of Aug. 30, 1842, c. 270,' as amended by sect. 1 of the act of Aug. 6,1846, c. 84, gave, with sur
Woodenware Co. v. United States
Woodenware Company v. United States. Where the plaintiff, in an action for -timber cut and carried away from his land, recovers damages, the rule -for assessing them against .the defendant is : 1. Where he is a wilful trespasser, the'full v
Grant v. Phœnix Insurance
Grant v. Phœnix Insurance Company. A decree is not final within the meaning of the act conferring appellate jurisdiction, unless upon its affirmance nothing remains but to execute it. The court therefore dismisses an appeal by the defendant
School District v. Hall
School District of Ackley v. Hall. A writ of error will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction by reason of a failure to annex thereto or return therewith an assignment of errors, pursuant to the requirements of sect. 997 Rev. Stat. Moti
Moffitt v. Rogers
Moffitt v. Rogers. Reissued letters-patent No. 0102, granted to John R. Moffitt for an “ improvement in the manufacture of heel stiffeners for boots and shoos,” are void, inasmuch as they cover a contrivance essentially different from that
Walker's Executors v. United States
Walker’s Executors v. United States. On the 12th of April, 1865, A., a resident of Memphis, purchased, in Mobile, from B., a resident of that city, — both cities being then in the occupancy of the national forces, — cotton, which was then i
Hodges v. Easton
Hodges v. Easton. Certain questions, covering only^a part of the material issues of fact, were propounded to the jury, who returned them with the answers thereto, as a special verdict. The judgment against the defendant recites that it was
Hemingway v. Stansell
Hemingway v. Stansell. 1. A board of commissioners, one from each of five counties, having been incorporated by a State statute to construct and maintain levees, with authority to make contracts for the doing of the work, and having made su
King v. Cornell
King v. Cornell. 1. Where a citizen of a State sues in a court thereof a citizen of the same State and an alien, the latter is not entitled to remove the suit to the Circuit Court. 2. The act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, repealed the second cl
Landsdale v. Smith
Landsdale v. Smith. A bill is bad on demurrer when it appears therefrom that there have been unreasonable delay and laches on the part of the complainant, or those under whom he claims, in asserting the rights which he seeks to enforce. App
Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Co.
Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Company. 1. Under section 5 of. chapter 138 of the General Laws of Wisconsin, of 1861, providing that “no action shall be commenced by the former owner or owners' of any lands, or by any person claiming under him o
Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis. The sixth section of the act of Aug. 15,1876, c. 287, prohibiting, under penalties therein mentioned, certain officers of the United States from requesting, giving to, or receiving from any other officer money or property o
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.