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

view Case Commentaries

“Appropriate & Necessary”: The High Court’s Tailored-Disclosure Standard for Maintenance Variation Applications – Commentary on D.D v N.B.T. [2025] IEHC 402

“Appropriate & Necessary”: The High Court’s Tailored-Disclosure Standard for Maintenance Variation Applications – Commentary on D.D v N.B.T. [2025] IEHC 402

Date: Jul 12, 2025
“Appropriate & Necessary”: A Tailored-Disclosure Standard for Maintenance Variation Applications (Commentary on D.D v N.B.T. [2025] IEHC 402) 1. Introduction D.D v N.B.T. is a High Court (Family Law)...
Prosecution Appeals and the “Interests-of-Justice” Threshold After Jury Acquittal – Director of Public Prosecutions v JS [2025] IESC 32

Prosecution Appeals and the “Interests-of-Justice” Threshold After Jury Acquittal – Director of Public Prosecutions v JS [2025] IESC 32

Date: Jul 12, 2025
Prosecution Appeals and the “Interests-of-Justice” Threshold After Jury Acquittal – Director of Public Prosecutions v JS [2025] IESC 32 Introduction Case reference: The People (DPP) v JS, Supreme...
“Restocking Without Conviction” –  Wickford v Secretary of State [2025] EWCA Civ 882:  A Court of Appeal Blueprint for (i) Post-Prosecution Restocking Notices and (ii) When a Public-Law Error is Immaterial

“Restocking Without Conviction” – Wickford v Secretary of State [2025] EWCA Civ 882: A Court of Appeal Blueprint for (i) Post-Prosecution Restocking Notices and (ii) When a Public-Law Error is Immaterial

Date: Jul 11, 2025
“Restocking Without Conviction” – Wickford v Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs [2025] EWCA Civ 882 Introduction The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wickford Development Company...
The Charterhouse Clarification: “Reasonable Recipient” and Substantial-Compliance Tests in Tenancy-Deposit Prescribed Information

The Charterhouse Clarification: “Reasonable Recipient” and Substantial-Compliance Tests in Tenancy-Deposit Prescribed Information

Date: Jul 11, 2025
The Charterhouse Clarification: “Reasonable Recipient” and Substantial-Compliance Tests in Tenancy-Deposit Prescribed Information Introduction Lowe v Governors of Sutton’s Hospital in Charterhouse...
Actual Authority, Not Ostensible Authority: The Court of Appeal Re-Defines the Limits of Undisclosed Principal Liability under Letters of Indemnity

Actual Authority, Not Ostensible Authority: The Court of Appeal Re-Defines the Limits of Undisclosed Principal Liability under Letters of Indemnity

Date: Jul 11, 2025
Actual Authority, Not Ostensible Authority: The Court of Appeal Re-Defines the Limits of Undisclosed Principal Liability under Letters of Indemnity 1. Introduction In Berge Bulk Shipping PTE Ltd v...
Kidnap with Subsequent Intent to Rape: Court of Appeal Clarifies Sentencing Autonomy – Commentary on Yellambai & Ors (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1017

Kidnap with Subsequent Intent to Rape: Court of Appeal Clarifies Sentencing Autonomy – Commentary on Yellambai & Ors (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1017

Date: Jul 11, 2025
Kidnap with Subsequent Intent to Rape: Court of Appeal Clarifies Sentencing Autonomy Commentary on Yellambai & Ors (R v) [2025] EWCA Crim 1017 1. Introduction In R v Yellambai, Manchala & Doppalapudi...
Mitigation Wears Thin: Appellate Confirmation that Persistent Violent Recidivism Can Substantially Diminish Psychiatric Mitigation and Justify Higher/Consecutive Starting Points for Multi‑Victim Knife Threats — R v Docta [2025] EWCA Crim 1144

Mitigation Wears Thin: Appellate Confirmation that Persistent Violent Recidivism Can Substantially Diminish Psychiatric Mitigation and Justify Higher/Consecutive Starting Points for Multi‑Victim Knife Threats — R v Docta [2025] EWCA Crim 1144

Date: Jul 11, 2025
Mitigation Wears Thin: Appellate Confirmation that Persistent Violent Recidivism Can Substantially Diminish Psychiatric Mitigation and Justify Higher/Consecutive Starting Points for Multi‑Victim...
Five-Year Inactivity Now “Almost Fatal”: High Court’s Post-Kirwan Clarification in Dennis Guilfoyle Developments Ltd v Wardrop [2025] IEHC 414

Five-Year Inactivity Now “Almost Fatal”: High Court’s Post-Kirwan Clarification in Dennis Guilfoyle Developments Ltd v Wardrop [2025] IEHC 414

Date: Jul 11, 2025
Five-Year Inactivity Now “Almost Fatal”: High Court’s Post-Kirwan Clarification in Dennis Guilfoyle Developments Ltd v Wardrop [2025] IEHC 414 1. Introduction The High Court (Barr J) in Dennis...
R v MAK [2025] EWCA Crim 1138: Fresh “evidence” from family opinion and pressured retractions held non-probative; ABE editing and social worker as appropriate adult endorsed; pre‑sentence recommendations not binding

R v MAK [2025] EWCA Crim 1138: Fresh “evidence” from family opinion and pressured retractions held non-probative; ABE editing and social worker as appropriate adult endorsed; pre‑sentence recommendations not binding

Date: Jul 11, 2025
R v MAK [2025] EWCA Crim 1138: Fresh “Evidence” from Family Opinion and Pressured Retractions Held Non‑Probative; ABE Editing and Social Worker as Appropriate Adult Endorsed; Pre‑Sentence...
R v Brown [2025] EWCA Crim 1086 —  Applying the Totality Guideline to Historical Offences Where the Offender Has Already Served a Prolonged Post-Tariff Period under an Earlier Life Sentence

R v Brown [2025] EWCA Crim 1086 — Applying the Totality Guideline to Historical Offences Where the Offender Has Already Served a Prolonged Post-Tariff Period under an Earlier Life Sentence

Date: Jul 11, 2025
R v Brown [2025] EWCA Crim 1086 — Applying the Totality Guideline to Historical Offences Where the Offender Has Already Served a Prolonged Post-Tariff Period under an Earlier Life Sentence...
R v Yu [2025] EWCA Crim 1066: Foundation for Cross‑Examination on Third‑Party Digital Messages and the Prosecution’s Duty to Pursue Defence‑Flagged Inquiries

R v Yu [2025] EWCA Crim 1066: Foundation for Cross‑Examination on Third‑Party Digital Messages and the Prosecution’s Duty to Pursue Defence‑Flagged Inquiries

Date: Jul 11, 2025
R v Yu [2025] EWCA Crim 1066: Foundation for Cross‑Examination on Third‑Party Digital Messages and the Prosecution’s Duty to Pursue Defence‑Flagged Inquiries Introduction This commentary examines the...
Bench Technology and Procedural Fairness: The UV Decision on Judges’ Limited Use of Electronic Devices During Evidence

Bench Technology and Procedural Fairness: The UV Decision on Judges’ Limited Use of Electronic Devices During Evidence

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Bench Technology and Procedural Fairness: UV v Locality Reporter Manager & WX ([2025] CSIH 19) — A New Touchstone on Judicial In-Court Use of Electronic Devices 1. Introduction The Inner House of the...
“Apparent” Means Plainly Visible:  Ruby Properties (Scotland) Ltd v Watt and the Limits of Companies-House Disclosure

“Apparent” Means Plainly Visible: Ruby Properties (Scotland) Ltd v Watt and the Limits of Companies-House Disclosure

Date: Jul 10, 2025
“Apparent” Means Plainly Visible: The New Threshold for General Disclosure in Share-Purchase Agreements Introduction In Ruby Properties (Scotland) Ltd (formerly ARB Aviation Ltd) v James Alistair...
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...
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