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

sienkiewicz-v-greif-(uk)-ltd:-upholding-the-fairchild-barker-exception-and-rejecting-the-& Case Commentaries

Rocep-Lusol v Lindal Dispenser: Post-Expiry Patent Royalties and the Modern Approach to Contractual Construction

Rocep-Lusol v Lindal Dispenser: Post-Expiry Patent Royalties and the Modern Approach to Contractual Construction

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Rocep-Lusol v Lindal Dispenser: Post-Expiry Patent Royalties and the Modern Approach to Contractual Construction 1. Introduction Citation: Rocep-Lusol Holdings Ltd v Lindal Dispenser GmbH (First...
Enduring Mental Disorder and the Substitution of Hospital Orders for Legacy IPP Sentences: A Commentary on Osmond v R [2025] EWCA Crim 835

Enduring Mental Disorder and the Substitution of Hospital Orders for Legacy IPP Sentences: A Commentary on Osmond v R [2025] EWCA Crim 835

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Enduring Mental Disorder and the Substitution of Hospital Orders for Legacy IPP Sentences A Commentary on Osmond v R [2025] EWCA Crim 835 Introduction The Court of Appeal’s decision in Osmond v R...
ANZ v R: Mandatory Means Inquiry & Restrictive Use of Compensation Orders in Criminal Sentencing

ANZ v R: Mandatory Means Inquiry & Restrictive Use of Compensation Orders in Criminal Sentencing

Date: Jul 10, 2025
ANZ v R: Mandatory Means Inquiry & Restrictive Use of Compensation Orders in Criminal Sentencing Introduction ANZ v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 778) is a Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision that...
JAH v R: Clarifying the “Lurking-Doubt” Threshold and the De-Minimis Rule for Procedural Irregularities on Criminal Appeal

JAH v R: Clarifying the “Lurking-Doubt” Threshold and the De-Minimis Rule for Procedural Irregularities on Criminal Appeal

Date: Jul 10, 2025
JAH v R: Clarifying the “Lurking-Doubt” Threshold and the De-Minimis Rule for Procedural Irregularities on Criminal Appeal Introduction In JAH, R v ([2025] EWCA Crim 1020) the Criminal Division of...
“Obvious Age” Decisions: Sufficiency of Brief Reasons after Duy Bach Tai (FE/LA) v. Glasgow City Council

“Obvious Age” Decisions: Sufficiency of Brief Reasons after Duy Bach Tai (FE/LA) v. Glasgow City Council

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“Obvious Age” Decisions: Sufficiency of Brief Reasons after Duy Bach Tai (FE/LA) for Judicial Review [2025] CSOH 60 1. Introduction The Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session, per Lord Lake,...

        Sutton v DPP (No. 2): High Court Clarifies that Previously-Disclosed Material
        Cannot Constitute “New Evidence” in Successive Prohibition Applications

Sutton v DPP (No. 2): High Court Clarifies that Previously-Disclosed Material Cannot Constitute “New Evidence” in Successive Prohibition Applications

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Sutton v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2025] IEHC 375: Clarifying the Non-Applicability of “Date of Knowledge” and Reinforcing the One-Proceeding Rule in Criminal Judicial Review...
“Will Not Be Issued” v. “Cannot Be Issued”:  Singh v. Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Proper Exercise of Ministerial Discretion under s.12(1)(i) of the Employment Permits Act 2006

“Will Not Be Issued” v. “Cannot Be Issued”: Singh v. Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Proper Exercise of Ministerial Discretion under s.12(1)(i) of the Employment Permits Act 2006

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“Will Not Be Issued” v. “Cannot Be Issued” Singh v. Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment ([2025] IEHC 383) Introduction In Singh v. Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the High...
“Occupation Is Not a Shield”: Planetwhite Ltd v Hogan & Anor and the Limits of Section 72(1)(j) of the Registration of Title Act 1964

“Occupation Is Not a Shield”: Planetwhite Ltd v Hogan & Anor and the Limits of Section 72(1)(j) of the Registration of Title Act 1964

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“Occupation Is Not a Shield”: Planetwhite Ltd v Hogan & Anor and the Limits of Section 72(1)(j) of the Registration of Title Act 1964 1. Introduction Planetwhite Ltd v Hogan & Anor ([2025] IEHC 378)...
Mars Capital v Kane & Anor – High Court Clarifies Business-Record Evidence and Parallel Proceedings in Mortgage Debt Litigation

Mars Capital v Kane & Anor – High Court Clarifies Business-Record Evidence and Parallel Proceedings in Mortgage Debt Litigation

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC v Kane & Anor [2025] IEHC 379 High Court confirms: (1) business-record evidence under the 2020 Act is admissible through a transferee’s deponent, and (2) a lender may...
“Developers First in Line” – Court of Appeal Confirms Retrospective Reach of Remediation Contribution Orders and the “Public-Purse-as-Last-Resort” Principle under the Building Safety Act 2022

“Developers First in Line” – Court of Appeal Confirms Retrospective Reach of Remediation Contribution Orders and the “Public-Purse-as-Last-Resort” Principle under the Building Safety Act 2022

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“Developers First in Line” – Court of Appeal Confirms Retrospective Reach of Remediation Contribution Orders and the “Public-Purse-as-Last-Resort” Principle under the Building Safety Act 2022...
Independent Admissibility of Business Records and Deponent Credibility in Summary Possession Proceedings – Comment on EBS Mortgage Finance & Mars Capital Finance DAC v. Bedford (No.3) [2025] IEHC 381

Independent Admissibility of Business Records and Deponent Credibility in Summary Possession Proceedings – Comment on EBS Mortgage Finance & Mars Capital Finance DAC v. Bedford (No.3) [2025] IEHC 381

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Independent Admissibility of Business Records and Deponent Credibility in Summary Possession Proceedings Commentary on EBS Mortgage Finance & Mars Capital Finance DAC v. Bedford (No.3) [2025] IEHC...
Finite, Not Fleeting: Court of Appeal Clarifies ‘Temporary’ Agency Work and Agency-Employer Status – Commentary on Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 849

Finite, Not Fleeting: Court of Appeal Clarifies ‘Temporary’ Agency Work and Agency-Employer Status – Commentary on Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 849

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Finite, Not Fleeting: Court of Appeal Clarifies ‘Temporary’ Agency Work and Agency-Employer Status Commentary on Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 849 1. Introduction The Court of Appeal’s...
Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point – The Post-Commencement Bar on Service Charges for Pre-Existing Building-Safety Legal Costs

Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point – The Post-Commencement Bar on Service Charges for Pre-Existing Building-Safety Legal Costs

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“No Service Charge Is Payable”: The Court of Appeal Confirms a Post-Commencement Bar on Passing Historic Building-Safety Legal Costs to Leaseholders (Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at...
Humphreys v R: Clarifying the Evidential Threshold for Harm Category 1 in Dangerous-Driving Sentencing

Humphreys v R: Clarifying the Evidential Threshold for Harm Category 1 in Dangerous-Driving Sentencing

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Humphreys v R: Clarifying the Evidential Threshold for Harm Category 1 in Dangerous-Driving Sentencing 1. Introduction Humphreys, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 997) presented the Court of Appeal (Criminal...
“The Murphy Adjustment” – Calibrating Sentences for Non-Terrorist Explosive Offences that Resemble Terrorism

“The Murphy Adjustment” – Calibrating Sentences for Non-Terrorist Explosive Offences that Resemble Terrorism

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“The Murphy Adjustment” – Calibrating Sentences for Non-Terrorist Explosive Offences that Resemble Terrorism Introduction The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision in Murphy,...
R v GBE: Clarifying the Limits of Delay-Based Sentence Reductions and the Court’s Discretion on Unduly Lenient References

R v GBE: Clarifying the Limits of Delay-Based Sentence Reductions and the Court’s Discretion on Unduly Lenient References

Date: Jul 9, 2025
R v GBE: Clarifying the Limits of Delay-Based Sentence Reductions and the Court’s Discretion on Unduly Lenient References 1. Introduction Case: GBE, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 1064) Court: Court of...
“Exceptional Departure”: When Severe Mental Ill-Health Justifies a Community Order for s.278 Sexual Offences – Commentary on IAG, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1087

“Exceptional Departure”: When Severe Mental Ill-Health Justifies a Community Order for s.278 Sexual Offences – Commentary on IAG, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1087

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“Exceptional Departure”: When Severe Mental Ill-Health Justifies a Community Order for s.278 Sexual Offences – Commentary on IAG, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1087 1. Introduction IAG, R. v ([2025] EWCA...
“Ammori v SSHD” — Consolidating Judicial Deference in Interim Relief
         Applications Against Proscription Orders

“Ammori v SSHD” — Consolidating Judicial Deference in Interim Relief Applications Against Proscription Orders

Date: Jul 8, 2025
“Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department” — Consolidating Judicial Deference in Interim Relief Applications Challenging Terrorism Proscription Orders Introduction In Ammori, R. (On the...
“The Cap-Neutrality Principle” – Court of Appeal Clarifies that Capped-Multiple LFAs Are Not Damages-Based Agreements (Sony v Neill [2025] EWCA Civ 841)

“The Cap-Neutrality Principle” – Court of Appeal Clarifies that Capped-Multiple LFAs Are Not Damages-Based Agreements (Sony v Neill [2025] EWCA Civ 841)

Date: Jul 8, 2025
“The Cap-Neutrality Principle” – Court of Appeal Clarifies that Capped-Multiple LFAs Are Not Damages-Based Agreements Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd & Anor v Alex Neill Class...
“From ‘Could’ to ‘Must’: Court of Appeal Clarifies the Actual-Exercise Requirement for Site-Provider Break Rights Under Paragraph 31 of the Electronic Communications Code”

“From ‘Could’ to ‘Must’: Court of Appeal Clarifies the Actual-Exercise Requirement for Site-Provider Break Rights Under Paragraph 31 of the Electronic Communications Code”

Date: Jul 8, 2025
From “Could” to “Must”: Court of Appeal Clarifies the Actual-Exercise Requirement for Site-Provider Break Rights Under Paragraph 31 of the Electronic Communications Code Introduction The Court of...
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