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
United States v. La Vengeance
The United States versus La Vengeance. ERROR from the Circuit Court for the diilrifl: of New York. - It appeared on the return of the record, that La Vengeance,' a French privateer, had captured and carried into New York, a Spanijb'lhip, ca
Searight v. Calbraith
APRIL TERM, 1796. Present — Iredell, Justice, and Peters, District Judge. Searight v. Calbraith et al. Calbraith et al. v. Searight. Tender. — Foreign laws. A tender ia necessary, though the creditor require payment, exclusively, in a certa
Hulsecamp v. Teel
April Term, 1796. Present—Iredell and Peters, Justices. Hulsecamp versus Teel. THIS was an action for an Assault and Battery committed on the High Stas, and the damages were laid in the declaration at 1000 dollars ; but the controversy bein
Bell v. Andrews
Bell v. Andrews. Statute of frauds. Where there has been payment of the price of land, under a parol agreement for the sale of it, an action will lie to recover damages for the non-performance of such a contract. This was an action on the c
Bank of North America v. Wycoff
Bank of North America v. Wycoff. Notice of nonpayment.— Witness. The indorser of a promissory note must receive notice, within a reasonable time, of the non-payment of the note by the maker. An executor, who is entitled to a share in the re
Febeiger's Lessee v. Craighead
*MARCH TERM, 1796. Febeiger’s Lessee v. Craighead. Sheriff’s sale. A sheriff’s sale of land, by virtue of a judgment and execution, subsequent to a mortgage to the trustees of the loan-office, does not destroy its lien. At a court of Nisi P
Ralston v. Bell
March Term, 1796. Ralston Assignee versus Bell. THIS was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority
Geyer v. Michel
Geyer, et al. versus Michel, et al. and the ship Den Onzekeren. THIS was a Writ of Error to the Circuit Court, for the Diftridt of South Carolina; and, or. the return of the record, the following pleadings appeared: On the ad of'February, 1
Ware v. Hylton
Ware, Administrator of Jones, Plaintiff in Error, versus Hylton et al. ERROR from the Circuit Court for the Diftrifi of Virginia. The aflion was brought by William fanes, (but as he died, pendente lite, his Adminiftrator was duly fubftitut-
M'Donough v. Dannery
M'Donough, versus Dannery, and the Ship Mary Ford. THIS was a writ of error to remove the proceedings and decree from the Circuit'Court, for the Diftriit of Maf-fa.bufetts; and, the record being returned, exhibited the following fa& :—On th
Hills v. Ross
Hills et al Plaintiffs in Error; versus Ross. THIS was a writ of error diredted to the Circuit Court for ■ the'Diftridt of Georgia. On the return of the record, feveral errors were affigned; but the only one, now .relied on, ftated “ that t
Hylton v. United States
Hylton, Plaintiff in Error, versus the United States. THIS was a writ of Error directed- to the Circuit Court for the Diftrict of Virginia-, and upon the return of the record, the following proceedings appeared. A n action ,of debt had been
Ketland v. Cassius
Ketland, qui tam. versus The Cassius. AN information that had been exhibited against the Cassius, as a vessel illegally out-fitted within the jurisdiction of the United States, came on to be argued upon a suggestion filed ex-officio by the
Wharton's Executors v. Lowrey
Wharton’s Executors versus Lowrey. BILL in Equity. The Bill was filed in October 1793, to open an account, which had been settled and signed by the complainants, in April, 1781, touching the, transactions between the testator and the defend
Ewing v. M'Nair
Ewing versus M'Nair. JUDGMENT was entered in this cause on the 1st day of September Term, 1796; and the plaintiff issued a Testatum Fi. Fa. to Allegheny County, founded on a Fi. Fa. to the sheriff of Philadelphia County, which was made retu
Greene's, Case
Greene’s, Case. GEORGE GREENE, having petitioned for a discharge under the laws for the relief of insolvent debtors, one of his creditors was offered as a witness to prove, that several judgments, had been confessed by the petitioner, witho
German v. Wainwright
German versus Wainwright.
Zantzinger v. Old
Zantzinger versus Old. A TEST ATUM Ca. Sa. had issued to the Sheriff of caster, upon which the party was arrested, and the money paid. But the Sheriff paid it over to the nominal, instead of the real, plaintiff, tho’ the indorsement for the
Stiles v. Donaldson
Stiles, Plf. in Er. versus Donaldson. WRIT of Error. To an action of Debt on a Bond, dated in August 1774, the defendant pleaded payment, and gave notice of a set-off. The cause was tried in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on the 19
Roberts v. Cay's Executors
Roberts versus Cay’s Executors. MANY actions were brought, returnable to January Term 1794, against the defendants, as Executors of Cay, the surviving partner of Clow and Gay, whose affairs were exceedingly deranged; and, on the 11nth of Ja
Beach v. Lee
Beach versus Lee. M. Levy for the plaintiff. Lewis for the defendant.
Respublica v. Nicholson
Respublica versus Nicholson. THIS cause had been removed by writ of Error, into the High Court of Errors and Appeals, and the judgment, being there affirmed, it was remitted to this Court. On motion of Ingersoll, for the Commonwealth, it wa
Hartshorne's Lessee v. Patton
Hartshorne’s Lessee versus Patton. THIS cause had been tried repeatedly in the city of Philadelphia ; but the Jury could not, in any instance, agree upon a verdict. Ingersoll, therefore, suggested to the Court, that in order to obtain a Jur
Barriere v. Nairac
Barriere versus Nairac. THIS was an action upon a Promissory Note, brought by the plaintiff, claiming to be indorsee of one Vuyton, against the defendant, the drawer of the note; in which the following declaration was filed. " Philadelphia
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.