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

material-prejudice-as-the-touchstone-of-procedural-fairness Case Commentaries

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...
Gatekeeping, Not Adjudication: The Limited Role of the National Appeal Panel Chair and the Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies in Scottish Pharmaceutical Services Appeals

Gatekeeping, Not Adjudication: The Limited Role of the National Appeal Panel Chair and the Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies in Scottish Pharmaceutical Services Appeals

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Gatekeeping, Not Adjudication: The Limited Role of the National Appeal Panel Chair and the Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies in Scottish Pharmaceutical Services Appeals 1. Introduction This commentary...
R v Khan [2025] EWCA Crim 1518 – Harm Categorisation, Totality and Proportional Sexual Harm Prevention Orders

R v Khan [2025] EWCA Crim 1518 – Harm Categorisation, Totality and Proportional Sexual Harm Prevention Orders

Date: Nov 7, 2025
R v Khan [2025] EWCA Crim 1518 – Harm Categorisation, Totality and Proportional Sexual Harm Prevention Orders 1. Introduction The decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Khan...
Leading Role, EncroChat, and Totality in Industrial‑Scale Drug Conspiracies: Commentary on R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517

Leading Role, EncroChat, and Totality in Industrial‑Scale Drug Conspiracies: Commentary on R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517

Date: Nov 7, 2025
Leading Role, EncroChat, and Totality in Industrial‑Scale Drug Conspiracies: Commentary on R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517 1. Introduction The decision in R v Thompson [2025] EWCA Crim 1517 is a...
JU v NU [2025] CSOH 118: Relocation, Coercive Control and the Court’s Duty to Choose the “Least Bad” Welfare Option

JU v NU [2025] CSOH 118: Relocation, Coercive Control and the Court’s Duty to Choose the “Least Bad” Welfare Option

Date: Nov 7, 2025
JU v NU [2025] CSOH 118: Relocation, Coercive Control and the Court’s Duty to Choose the “Least Bad” Welfare Option 1. Introduction This commentary examines the decision of Lord Braid in JU v NU...
"Wholly Successful" for Costs Despite Undetermined Grounds – Commentary on Palatine DAC v An Coimisiún Pleanála [No. 2] [2025] IEHC 607

"Wholly Successful" for Costs Despite Undetermined Grounds – Commentary on Palatine DAC v An Coimisiún Pleanála [No. 2] [2025] IEHC 607

Date: Nov 6, 2025
“Wholly Successful” for Costs Despite Undetermined Grounds: Commentary on Palatine DAC v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 607 1. Introduction This ruling of Ms Justice Emily Farrell in...
R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523: Uplifts, Totality and Procedural Requirements in Sentencing Assaults on Emergency Workers and Racially Aggravated Harassment

R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523: Uplifts, Totality and Procedural Requirements in Sentencing Assaults on Emergency Workers and Racially Aggravated Harassment

Date: Nov 6, 2025
R v Habibi [2025] EWCA Crim 1523: Uplifts, Totality and Procedural Requirements in Sentencing Assaults on Emergency Workers and Racially Aggravated Harassment 1. Introduction The decision of the...
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...
Passage of Time as a Standalone Ground for Dismissal: High Court applies Kirwan’s five‑year inactivity rule and clarifies what counts as a “step in the proceedings”

Passage of Time as a Standalone Ground for Dismissal: High Court applies Kirwan’s five‑year inactivity rule and clarifies what counts as a “step in the proceedings”

Date: Nov 5, 2025
Passage of Time as a Standalone Ground for Dismissal: High Court applies Kirwan’s five‑year inactivity rule and clarifies what counts as a “step in the proceedings” Introduction This commentary...
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