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

expanding-duty-of-care:-house-of-lords-establishes-solicitor& Case Commentaries

Cummer Coaches: Scheduled Public Bus Services Are Not “Qualifying Persons” for Touring Coach VAT Refunds; “Contracts for Group Transport” Means Multiple Group-Tourist Contracts

Cummer Coaches: Scheduled Public Bus Services Are Not “Qualifying Persons” for Touring Coach VAT Refunds; “Contracts for Group Transport” Means Multiple Group-Tourist Contracts

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Cummer Coaches: Scheduled Public Bus Services Are Not “Qualifying Persons” for Touring Coach VAT Refunds; “Contracts for Group Transport” Means Multiple Group-Tourist Contracts Introduction This...
Egregious contempt and retention intentions do not bar restorative orders: High Court mandates full remediation under s.160 for intensified unauthorised quarrying

Egregious contempt and retention intentions do not bar restorative orders: High Court mandates full remediation under s.160 for intensified unauthorised quarrying

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Egregious contempt and retention intentions do not bar restorative orders: High Court mandates full remediation under s.160 for intensified unauthorised quarrying Case: Bencik & Anor v Hilltop...
School Exclusions: Governors’ Policy and DfE Guidance Set the Legal Test; Behaviour Policies Cannot Elevate the Threshold — Immaterial Errors and High‑Intensity Review Clarified in SAG v Governing Body of Winchmore School [2025] EWCA Civ 1335

School Exclusions: Governors’ Policy and DfE Guidance Set the Legal Test; Behaviour Policies Cannot Elevate the Threshold — Immaterial Errors and High‑Intensity Review Clarified in SAG v Governing Body of Winchmore School [2025] EWCA Civ 1335

Date: Oct 22, 2025
School Exclusions: Governors’ Policy and DfE Guidance Set the Legal Test; Behaviour Policies Cannot Elevate the Threshold — Immaterial Errors and High‑Intensity Review Clarified Case: SAG, R (On the...
Onuzi v SSHD: FTT’s role under s 40(3) confirmed as public-law review of causation; prolonged identity deception ordinarily material to naturalisation

Onuzi v SSHD: FTT’s role under s 40(3) confirmed as public-law review of causation; prolonged identity deception ordinarily material to naturalisation

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Onuzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1337: FTT’s role under s 40(3) confirmed as public-law review of causation; prolonged identity deception ordinarily material to...
Automatic cessation of the main homelessness duty on acceptance of a Part VI offer; section 184 does not govern discharge decisions; challenges must run through the Part VII review/appeal scheme

Automatic cessation of the main homelessness duty on acceptance of a Part VI offer; section 184 does not govern discharge decisions; challenges must run through the Part VII review/appeal scheme

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Automatic cessation of the main homelessness duty on acceptance of a Part VI offer; section 184 does not govern discharge decisions; challenges must run through the Part VII review/appeal scheme...
JK [2025] EWCA Civ 1309 — Local authorities may use the parens patriae jurisdiction to secure a British child’s return from a non‑Contracting State notwithstanding an intention to issue care proceedings (Re M “sufficiently compelling” test affirmed; FLA 1986 largely irrelevant)

JK [2025] EWCA Civ 1309 — Local authorities may use the parens patriae jurisdiction to secure a British child’s return from a non‑Contracting State notwithstanding an intention to issue care proceedings (Re M “sufficiently compelling” test affirmed; FLA 1986 largely irrelevant)

Date: Oct 22, 2025
JK [2025] EWCA Civ 1309: Local authorities can secure a British child’s return under the inherent jurisdiction even where care proceedings are intended; Family Law Act 1986 largely irrelevant to...
Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO

Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Late Quantum-Phase Amendments and Litigation Holds: The Court of Appeal’s Four‑Stage Prejudice Analysis in ENRC v Dechert & SFO Introduction This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s judgment in...
Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items

Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Bradley v Abacus: Court of Appeal confines s.27A review to the “no reasonable landlord” test and clarifies the two‑stage allocation of service charge items Introduction This Court of Appeal decision...
Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel

Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Blake & Ors v Fox: Court of Appeal reasserts Dingle for serious-harm causation, adopts “material contribution” for specific losses, and clarifies mitigation and media republication in libel...
Ammori v SSHD: Deproscription/POAC is not an alternative to judicial review of an initial proscription; and respondents must meet CPR 52.8’s seven‑day limit when seeking permission to appeal refused JR grounds

Ammori v SSHD: Deproscription/POAC is not an alternative to judicial review of an initial proscription; and respondents must meet CPR 52.8’s seven‑day limit when seeking permission to appeal refused JR grounds

Date: Oct 22, 2025
New Principle: Initial Proscription Orders Are Directly Reviewable in the Administrative Court; Deproscription/POAC is not an available or adequate alternative remedy. CPR 52.8’s seven‑day time limit...
Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8

Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Balgova: Non‑standard Art. 2(2) EAW Categories Trigger a Correspondence Assessment; Caregiver Hardship Alone Insufficient to Defeat Surrender under Article 8 Introduction This High Court decision in...
Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be Strictly Scrutinised

Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be Strictly Scrutinised

Date: Oct 22, 2025
Clarke v Pepper Finance (IEHC 564, 2025): Absence of Vehicular Access Is Not “Landlock”; Receivers Must Market “Warts and All,” and Borrowers’ Undertakings in Investment Property Cases Will Be...
CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations

CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations

Date: Oct 22, 2025
CityJet DAC: Clarifying the Best Interests of Creditors Test, Valuation Timing, and Examiner’s Onus in Examinership Confirmations Introduction In CityJet Designated Activity Company [2025] IEHC 562,...
Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543)

Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543)

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Special circumstances as a gateway to late IPAT appeals: High Court affirms cumulative test and strict formality for asylum appeals (GB v IPAT [2025] IEHC 543) Introduction In GB v The International...
Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties

Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Brexit Is Not a “Taking Out” Under UCC Article 154: High Court sets RGR clock from pre‑Brexit movement and reinforces strict proof and representation duties Introduction This commentary analyses the...
Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Commentary on Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565

Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Commentary on Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565

Date: Oct 21, 2025
Intra-Party Nomination Directives Are Non-Justiciable, and the Constitution Cannot Be Unconstitutional: Byrne v The Tánaiste & Ors [2025] IEHC 565 Introduction This High Court judgment, delivered by...
A strict s.5(2) clock and a substantive s.49 duty: IPAT findings on risk must be expressly weighed in permission-to-remain decisions (A.B. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Minister [2025] IEHC 572)

A strict s.5(2) clock and a substantive s.49 duty: IPAT findings on risk must be expressly weighed in permission-to-remain decisions (A.B. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Minister [2025] IEHC 572)

Date: Oct 18, 2025
A strict s.5(2) clock and a substantive s.49 duty: IPAT findings on risk must be expressly weighed in permission-to-remain decisions Introduction In A.B. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal &...

      Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations Are Not Proved — R v Al‑Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations Are Not Proved — R v Al‑Shumari [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Co-defendant Bad Character Evidence under s.101(1)(e) CJA 2003: When School CRIS Reports and Social Media Messages Supply “Substantial Probative Value” and the Required Jury Directions if Allegations...
Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal

Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Carson v McKee [2025] NICA 53 — Courts must grapple with operative medical evidence before refusing adjournments; failure is a material error warranting limited remittal Introduction In Carson v...
Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales

Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Undoing Unlawful Re-entry: Clarifying interim possession under section 47(2) and recall standards amid late buy‑out offers in sequestration sales Introduction Decision: Opinion of Lord Richardson,...
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