Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries

all Case Commentaries

MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1387: Court of Appeal redefines the “red hand” rule as the “onerous clause doctrine” and confirms the compatibility and efficacy of pay‑first clauses in marine liability insurance

MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1387: Court of Appeal redefines the “red hand” rule as the “onerous clause doctrine” and confirms the compatibility and efficacy of pay‑first clauses in marine liability insurance

Date: Nov 7, 2025
MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1387: Court of Appeal redefines the “red hand” rule as the “onerous clause doctrine” and confirms the compatibility and efficacy of pay‑first...
Foreign Assistors Cannot Rely on the Babanaft Proviso to Escape Civil Liability: Unlawful Means Conspiracy for Aiding Breach of English Freezing Orders

Foreign Assistors Cannot Rely on the Babanaft Proviso to Escape Civil Liability: Unlawful Means Conspiracy for Aiding Breach of English Freezing Orders

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Foreign Assistors Cannot Rely on the Babanaft Proviso to Escape Civil Liability: Unlawful Means Conspiracy for Aiding Breach of English Freezing Orders Case: Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors...
No “Permanence” Requirement and Mediation-Delay Counts: The Court of Appeal Recasts the Article 12(2) Settlement Defence

No “Permanence” Requirement and Mediation-Delay Counts: The Court of Appeal Recasts the Article 12(2) Settlement Defence

Date: Nov 7, 2025
No “Permanence” Requirement and Mediation-Delay Counts: The Court of Appeal Recasts the Article 12(2) Settlement Defence Introduction This Court of Appeal decision in B (Child Abduction: Settlement)...
Timeliness Over Administrative Convenience in AIE Appeals: High Court affirms implied power to remit but refers the governing “timeliness” standard to the CJEU

Timeliness Over Administrative Convenience in AIE Appeals: High Court affirms implied power to remit but refers the governing “timeliness” standard to the CJEU

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Timeliness Over Administrative Convenience in AIE Appeals: High Court affirms implied power to remit but refers the governing “timeliness” standard to the CJEU Case: People Over Wind v Commissioner...
Affidavit Candour and a Two‑Tranche Approach to Costs in Moot Delay Judicial Reviews: M (A Minor) v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2025] IEHC 581

Affidavit Candour and a Two‑Tranche Approach to Costs in Moot Delay Judicial Reviews: M (A Minor) v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2025] IEHC 581

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Affidavit Candour and a Two‑Tranche Approach to Costs in Moot Delay Judicial Reviews: M (A Minor) v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2025] IEHC 581 Introduction This commentary examines the High Court...
Contextual Discovery in Deed Interpretation: Ordering Antecedent and Chain‑of‑Title Materials Despite Parties’ Claims of Unambiguity

Contextual Discovery in Deed Interpretation: Ordering Antecedent and Chain‑of‑Title Materials Despite Parties’ Claims of Unambiguity

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Contextual Discovery in Deed Interpretation: Ordering Antecedent and Chain‑of‑Title Materials Despite Parties’ Claims of Unambiguity Introduction In Murray & Anor v Goldstein Property ICAV [2025]...
Accrual by “Real and Meaningfully Measurable Loss” in Solicitor‑Negligence-for-Delay and Validity of Firm‑Named Appearances: High Threshold for Strike‑Out under Amended Order 19

Accrual by “Real and Meaningfully Measurable Loss” in Solicitor‑Negligence-for-Delay and Validity of Firm‑Named Appearances: High Threshold for Strike‑Out under Amended Order 19

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Accrual by “Real and Meaningfully Measurable Loss” in Solicitor‑Negligence‑for‑Delay and Validity of Firm‑Named Appearances: High Threshold for Strike‑Out under Amended Order 19 Case: Killeen v...
Firm-Signed Appearances Are Valid Under Order 12 RSC; Limitation Defences Rarely Suited to Strike-Out in Solicitor Negligence: Commentary on Killeen v Higgins [2025] IEHC 582

Firm-Signed Appearances Are Valid Under Order 12 RSC; Limitation Defences Rarely Suited to Strike-Out in Solicitor Negligence: Commentary on Killeen v Higgins [2025] IEHC 582

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Firm-Signed Appearances Are Valid Under Order 12 RSC; Limitation Defences Rarely Suited to Strike-Out in Solicitor Negligence Introduction This commentary analyzes the High Court of Ireland’s...
High Court confirms “special circumstances” are required to set aside a default judgment obtained in default of appearance: Hussien v Dunleavy Meats [2025] IEHC 586

High Court confirms “special circumstances” are required to set aside a default judgment obtained in default of appearance: Hussien v Dunleavy Meats [2025] IEHC 586

Date: Nov 7, 2025
“Special circumstances” are now integral to setting aside default judgments under Order 13: Commentary on Hussien v Dunleavy Meats Unlimited Company [2025] IEHC 586 Introduction In Hussien v Dunleavy...
Affidavit Cross‑Examination in Judicial Review Requires a Material, Necessity‑Linked Factual Conflict: CSNA Company Ltd v Minister for Health [2025] IEHC 594

Affidavit Cross‑Examination in Judicial Review Requires a Material, Necessity‑Linked Factual Conflict: CSNA Company Ltd v Minister for Health [2025] IEHC 594

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Affidavit Cross‑Examination in Judicial Review Requires a Material, Necessity‑Linked Factual Conflict: CSNA Company Ltd v Minister for Health [2025] IEHC 594 Introduction This High Court judgment...
Article 40.4.2 Does Not Permit Class‑Wide Habeas: Specificity and Case‑Focus Required — Commentary on McGreal v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 597

Article 40.4.2 Does Not Permit Class‑Wide Habeas: Specificity and Case‑Focus Required — Commentary on McGreal v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 597

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Article 40.4.2 Does Not Permit Class‑Wide Habeas: Specificity and Case‑Focus Required Case: McGreal v The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration & Ors [2025] IEHC 597 (High Court of...
Harm‑centric sentencing for TPO breaches: replanting is not mitigation, failure to check is negligent, and fines must bite for wealthy offenders (R v Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384)

Harm‑centric sentencing for TPO breaches: replanting is not mitigation, failure to check is negligent, and fines must bite for wealthy offenders (R v Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384)

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Harm‑centric sentencing for TPO breaches: replanting is not mitigation, failure to check is negligent, and fines must bite for wealthy offenders Case: R v Chamdal [2025] EWCA Crim 1384 (England and...
Extending Balajigari to Part 9 Cancellations: Two-stage procedural fairness, “no prejudice” and s.31(2A) in Singaram v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375

Extending Balajigari to Part 9 Cancellations: Two-stage procedural fairness, “no prejudice” and s.31(2A) in Singaram v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Extending Balajigari to Part 9 Cancellations: Two-stage procedural fairness, “no prejudice” and s.31(2A) in Singaram v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375 Introduction This Court of Appeal decision clarifies...
“Could, Not Ought”: Inner House Clarifies Section 26(2)(e) FAIs — Sheriffs Must Record Any Reasonable Precautions Even Where Another Reasonable Option Was Taken

“Could, Not Ought”: Inner House Clarifies Section 26(2)(e) FAIs — Sheriffs Must Record Any Reasonable Precautions Even Where Another Reasonable Option Was Taken

Date: Nov 5, 2025
“Could, Not Ought”: Inner House Clarifies Section 26(2)(e) FAIs — Sheriffs Must Record Any Reasonable Precautions Even Where Another Reasonable Option Was Taken Introduction In Dr Karen Duncan v The...
Functional Pleading Under the Hague Convention: Misdescription of Removal/Retention and Uncertain Date Do Not Defeat a Return Order ([2025] CSOH 100)

Functional Pleading Under the Hague Convention: Misdescription of Removal/Retention and Uncertain Date Do Not Defeat a Return Order ([2025] CSOH 100)

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Functional Pleading Under the Hague Convention: Misdescription of Removal/Retention and Uncertain Date Do Not Defeat a Return Order Introduction This commentary examines the opinion of Lord Braid in...
Horsley v SLCC: No “Best Evidence” or Investigative Duty at Eligibility Stage; Objective Basis Required for Allegations of Document Falsification

Horsley v SLCC: No “Best Evidence” or Investigative Duty at Eligibility Stage; Objective Basis Required for Allegations of Document Falsification

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Horsley v SLCC: No “Best Evidence” or Investigative Duty at Eligibility Stage; Objective Basis Required for Allegations of Document Falsification Introduction In [2025] CSIH 28 (31 October 2025), the...
Post‑Abatement Stigma Damages in Nuisance: High Court recognises market‑value loss where injunction requires ongoing engagement and verification

Post‑Abatement Stigma Damages in Nuisance: High Court recognises market‑value loss where injunction requires ongoing engagement and verification

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Post‑Abatement Stigma Damages in Nuisance: High Court recognises market‑value loss where injunction requires ongoing engagement and verification Introduction This commentary examines the Irish High...
Electronic Peaceable Re‑Entry and the “Free Ride” Bar to Mandatory Injunctions: Commentary on Perfect Stripe Ltd t/a Grafter v Fennell & Ors [2025] IEHC 585

Electronic Peaceable Re‑Entry and the “Free Ride” Bar to Mandatory Injunctions: Commentary on Perfect Stripe Ltd t/a Grafter v Fennell & Ors [2025] IEHC 585

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Electronic Peaceable Re‑Entry and the “Free Ride” Bar to Mandatory Injunctions: New Guidance from Perfect Stripe Ltd t/a Grafter v Fennell & Ors [2025] IEHC 585 Court: High Court (Commercial Court),...
No amendment prejudice where statute bar was inevitable: High Court permits late PIAB authorisation and limitation defences (O’Flaherty v Comyns & Ors [2025] IEHC 590)

No amendment prejudice where statute bar was inevitable: High Court permits late PIAB authorisation and limitation defences (O’Flaherty v Comyns & Ors [2025] IEHC 590)

Date: Nov 5, 2025
No amendment prejudice where statute bar was inevitable: High Court permits late PIAB authorisation and limitation defences Case: O’ Flaherty v Comyns & Ors [2025] IEHC 590 (High Court, Stack J., 31...
A cautious strike‑out standard in cross‑undertaking damages inquiries: Beneficial ownership and agent illegality are potentially relevant (Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd & Ors [2025] IEHC 575)

A cautious strike‑out standard in cross‑undertaking damages inquiries: Beneficial ownership and agent illegality are potentially relevant (Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd & Ors [2025] IEHC 575)

Date: Nov 5, 2025
A cautious strike‑out standard in cross‑undertaking damages inquiries: Beneficial ownership and agent illegality are potentially relevant (Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd & Ors [2025] IEHC 575) Introduction...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert