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
Jessup v. United States
Jessup v. United States. 1. Section 161 of the act of June 30,1364, c. 173, entitled “An Act to provide internal revenue to support the government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,” does not require that when, pur
Wing v. Anthony
Wing v. Anthony. Reissued letters-patent No. 1049, bearing date Sept. 25; 1860, granted to Albert S. Southworth for certain improvements in taking photographic impressions, and subsequently extended for seven years from April ^lO, 1869, are
Pritchard v. Norton
Pritchard v. Norton. A. and B. executed and delivered to C., in New York, a bond of indemnity, conditioned to hold harmless and fully indemnify him against all loss or damage arising from his liability on an appeal bond, which he had signed
Steamship Co. v. Tugman
Steamship Company v. Tugman. 1. The members of a foreign corporation, when it sues or is sued in a court of the United States, are conclusively presumed to be citizens or subjects of the State or country which created it. ,, 2. The citizens
Bailey v. Railroad Co.
Bailey v. Railroad Company. The court, in 22 Wall. 604, when this ease was then before it, passed upon the character and effect of certain certificates therein' described, which were issued by a railroad company pursuant to a resolution pas
Bacon v. Rives
Bacon v. Rives. 1. Where the complainants are citizens of the State in a court whereof the suit was brought, and the defendant, who is the real party to the controversy, and against whom relief is sought, is a citizen of another State, his
Brown v. Colorado
Brown v. Colorado. The State of Colorado brought ejectment in one of her courts, and offered in evidence the defendant’s deed to the Territory of Colorado for the demanded premises. He objected to its introduction, upon the ground that at i
Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons
Cotton-Tie Company v. Simmons. The owner of patents for improvements in metallic.cotton-bale ties, each tie consisting of a buckle and a band, granted no license to manufacture the ties, but supplied the market with them, the words, “ Licen
Equator Co. v. Hall
Equator Company v. Hall. 1. When judgment is rendered against either party to an action for the recovery of real property in Colorado, he is, without showing cause therefor, entitled, by a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Sta
Chicago & Vincennes Railroad v. Fosdick
Chicago and Vincennes Railroad Company v. Fosdick. Same v. Huidekoper. 1. A railroad company executed, March lOj 1869, to a trustee, by way of security for its bonds payable thirty years thereafter, a first mortgage upon its road, and stipu
Call v. Palmer
Call v. Palmer. Rule 32 applies only to cases remanded to a State court by the Circuit Court, or dismissed under the authority of sect. 5 of the act of March 3,1875, c. 137. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Distric
Phœnix Insurance v. Doster
Phœnix Insurance Company v. Doster. 1. A case should not be withdrawn from the jury, unless the facts are undisputed, ■ or the testimony is of such a conclusive character that a verdict in conflict therewith would be set aside. 2. Circumsta
The "North Star"
The “North Star.” 1. In cases of collision, where .both vessels were in fault, the maritime rule is to divide the entire damage equally between them, and to decree half the difference between their respective losses in favor of the one that
The "New Orleans"
The “New Orleans.” 1. The court, upon the facts found by the Circuit Court, affirrhs. the decree whereby the steamer “ New Orleans ” was condemned to pay the damages occasioned by her collision with a schooner. . ' • 2. The evidence which i
Bayly v. University
Bayly v. University. 1. A composition between a bankrupt and his creditors, under sect. 17 of the act of June 22,1874, c. 390, although ratified by the proper District Court, did not discharge him from a debt of. a liability incurred by him
Coughlin v. District of Columbia
Coughlin v. District of Columbia. 1. After the adjournment without day of a term, whereat a final judgment on a verdict was rendered by one justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and an appeal taken therefrom to the gener
Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Ex parte Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. An appeal will not lie from a decree of the Circuit Court, which adjudged to none of the libellants iií a collision suit, who had distinct causes of action against the vessel at fault, a sum exc
Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff
Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff. A judgment of reversal by a State court, with leave for further proceedings in the court of.original jurisdiction, is not subject to review here. Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the Stat
Parker v. Morrill
Parker v. Morrill. An appeal will be' dismissed where it does not appear by the record, or otherwise, that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Di
Upton v. Mason
UPTON v. MASON. error to the supreme court op THE TERRITORY OP WYOMING. No. 262. Submitted April 3, 1882. Decided April 10, 1882. Hecht v. Bowjhton, 105 U. S. 235, followed. Mr. Homer Cook and Mr. E. P. Johnson for plaintiff in error. Mr. E
United States v. Canda
UNITED STATES v. CANDA. A CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 257. Submitted April 3, 1882. Decided April 10, 1882. United Staten v. Uosenburgh, 7 Wall. 58
Mellon v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
MELLON v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD CO. APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA. No. 244. Submitted March 24, 1882. Decided April 3, 1882. The burden of proving this case i
Bonnifield v. Price
BONNIFIELD v. PRICE. error to the supreme court of THE TERRITORY OF WYOMING. No. 230. Submitted March 16, 1882. Decided March 27, 1882. Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, followed.
United States v. Barnett
UNITED STATES v. BARNETT. APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 901. Argued January 18, 1882. Decided March 6, 1882. United States v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567, followed. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. William Lawrence for appellant. Mr. J. W. Dou
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.