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
Browse Every Case
313,007 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
Shirras v. Mitchel
ALEXANDER SHIRRAS, JOHN BLACK, WILLIAM MILLIGAN, WILLIAM BLACKLOCK & JOSEPH VERREES, v. JOHN CAIG & ROBERT MITCHEL. Msent....Washington, justice jan^made6by one who has a ieg.-u and e fróm/the heiTthel-esiáue of the ieestate in the” !fnncId
Catherine v. U. States
SCHOONER CATHERINE v. THE U. STATES. . Absent....Washington,justice. If the counsel j^tne^S to theSatementof the points qf the case, the dumped?1
United States v. Hudson
THE UNITED STATES v. HUDSON AND GOODWIN Absent.... Washi ngton, justice. The courts of the I?. States have no common law jurisdiction in cases of libel against the government of the United States. But they have the power to fine for con-tem
Hudson & Smith Guestier
HUDSON & SMITH GUESTIER. [ Judges present...~Wa shington, _ Livingston, Todd, Duvaiu, & Story.] This court Aausé after the term ''** ON the first day of the term, Harper moved for, .and obtained a rule to show cause why this case, which was
United States v. Tyler
UNITED STATES v. JOHN TYLER. Upon an indictment for putting goods on board a car- • riage, with in- • tent to transport them out of the United States contrary to the act of Jan. 9, 1809, the punishment of which offence is a fine of four tim
Freeland v. Heron, Lenox & Co.
ARCHIBALD FREELAND v. HERON, LENOX AND COMPANY. mneBt°sent by a foreign merchant toa merchant in this country & not objected to fortw0year8j is deemed an account stated, * 8c/ throws the burden of «proof upoi). him. who rep ceivcd 8c tept i
United States v. Goodwin
THE UNITED STATES v. JOHN GOODWIN. pro writ Of error.iies to the Court ofth UñHedStoteá, to reverso the • in a civil ac-ferried*5 ub to the cirouit 0ourt from the Uistíourt, by wit of error. THIS was an action of debt brought originally in
Maryland Insurance v. Ruden's Administrator
THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. RUDEN’S ADMINISTRATOR. What is reasonable time for abandonment is a question for the jury to decide under the direction of a court. The operation of a concealment, on the polier, depends on its materiality
Sere & Laralde v. Pitot
SERE AND LARALDE v. PITOT AND OTHERS. A general assignee of the effects of an insolvent cannot sue in the federal courts, if his assignor could not have sued in those courts. The citizens of the. territory of Orleans may sue and be sued in
Hudson & Smith v. Guestier
HUDSON AND SMITH v. GUESTIER. The jurisdiction of the French courts as to seizured, is not confined to seizures made within two leagues of the coast. A seizure, beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction, for breach of a municipal re
Marine Insurance v. Hodgson
THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA v. HODGSON. The refusal of an inferior court to allow a plea to be amended, or a new plea to be filed, or to grant a new trial, or to continue a case, cannot be assigned as error. After a cause is
Smith v. Maryland ex rel. Caroll & Maccubbin
SMITH v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND, AT THE INSTANCE AND FOR THE USE OF CARROLL AND MACCUBBIN. A writ of error lies to the highest court of a state, in A cáse where the question is •whether a con.fiscation under the law-of the «{Até was com•plet
Livingston & Gilchrist v. Maryland Insurance
LIVINGSTON AND GILCHRIST v. THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY. If the interest of one joint owner of a cargo be insured, and if that interest be neutral, it is no breach of the warranty of neutrality if the other joint owner, whose interest is
Fletcher v. Peck
FLETCHER v. PECK. It is not necessary that a breach of covenant be assigned in the very words of the covenant. It is sufficient if it show a substantial breach. If the breach of covenant assigned be, that the state had no authority to sell
Durousseau v. United States
DUROUSSEAU AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED STATES The appellants powers of the supreme court of the United are .S'" Ten by the conetitution f but they are limited and'regulated by the judicial act, and other acts passed by congress on the subject.
Chesapeake Insurance v. Stark
THE CHESAPEAKE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STARK. The agent who makes insurance for his principal, has authority to abandon whithout a formal letter of attorney. The informality of a deed of cession is unimportant, because, if the abandonment be u
Sheehy v. Mandeville & Jamesson
SHEEHY v. MANDEVILLE AND JAMESSON. A promissory note given and recerved for and in discharge of an open account is a bar to, an action upon the open account, altho’ the note be not paid. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Columb
Finley v. Lynn
FINLEY v. LYNN. A bond, executed in pursuance of articles of agreement, may, in equity, be restrained by, those articles. A complainant in equity may have relief even against the admissions in his bill. ERROR to the circuit court for the di
Custiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co.
CUSTISS v. THE GEORGETOWN AND ALEXANDRIA TURNPIKE COMPANY. An appeal lies to the supreme court from an order of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, quashing an inquisition in the nature of a writ ad quod dumnum. • The circuit “'“
Vasse v. Smith
VASSE v. SMITH. ' Infancy is a bar tó an action by an owner against his snpevcai-go instructions ■ hut not to an action of troivev for the goodsf ' Still, however, m-given in evióf trover, upon the ^eaofnot^guiig-n°toS show the nature of ^s
Slacum v. Pomery
SLACUM v. POMERY. In an' action by tbe endorsee against the endorsor of a foreign bill of exchange, the defendantis liable fordamages according to the law of the place where the bill was endorsed. The endorsement is a new and substantive co
United States v. Hall & Worth
THE UNITED STATES v. HALL AND WORTH. If a vessel be driven by sterss of weather to the West Indies, and the cargo there detained by the government of the place, this is such a casualty as comes within the exception of "dungere of the seas"
Kennedy v. Brent
KENNEDY v. BRENT. The marshal of the district of Columbia is bound to serve a subpoena in chancery as soon as he reasonably can; and the service of such subpoerna, in case of a chancery attachment in Virginia, will make the garnishee liable
Massie v. Watts
MASSIE v. WATTS. The practice in Kentucky to call a jury to ascertain the facts in chancery causesis incorrect. A suit in chancery buy one who has the prior equity against him who has the eldest patent is in its nature loacl, and if it be a
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.