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

“From Absolute Time-Bar to Discretionary Extension” – Barniville P. Affirms the High Court’s Power to Extend the 21-Day Limit in Appeals from Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

“From Absolute Time-Bar to Discretionary Extension” – Barniville P. Affirms the High Court’s Power to Extend the 21-Day Limit in Appeals from Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“From Absolute Time-Bar to Discretionary Extension” – Barniville P. Affirms the High Court’s Power to Extend the 21-Day Limit in Appeals from Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions 1....
R v Mir: Court of Appeal Endorses Robust Upward Adjustments for Multi-Drug EncroChat Conspiracies under the Totality Principle

R v Mir: Court of Appeal Endorses Robust Upward Adjustments for Multi-Drug EncroChat Conspiracies under the Totality Principle

Date: Jun 18, 2025
R v Mir: Court of Appeal Endorses Robust Upward Adjustments for Multi-Drug EncroChat Conspiracies under the Totality Principle Introduction The decision in Mir, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 853) concerns...
“Re-calibrating Indefinite Detention” – The Preference for Extended Sentences over IPP for Young Dangerous Offenders (Commentary on Sillitto, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 868)

“Re-calibrating Indefinite Detention” – The Preference for Extended Sentences over IPP for Young Dangerous Offenders (Commentary on Sillitto, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 868)

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“Re-calibrating Indefinite Detention” – The Preference for Extended Sentences over IPP for Young Dangerous Offenders Commentary on Sillitto, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 868), Court of Appeal (Criminal...
Affirmation of Category A1 Sentencing for Absent Conspirators – Commentary on R v Lambert [2025] EWCA Crim 918

Affirmation of Category A1 Sentencing for Absent Conspirators – Commentary on R v Lambert [2025] EWCA Crim 918

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Affirmation of Category A1 Sentencing for Absent Conspirators Commentary on R v Lambert, [2025] EWCA Crim 918 1. Introduction R v Lambert concerns an appeal against a 14-year sentence imposed for...
Ashfaq: Blended use of Street and Dwelling Robbery Guidelines for “Hybrid-Location” Robberies; Youth Discounts upheld on Unduly Lenient Sentence review

Ashfaq: Blended use of Street and Dwelling Robbery Guidelines for “Hybrid-Location” Robberies; Youth Discounts upheld on Unduly Lenient Sentence review

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Ashfaq: Blended use of Street and Dwelling Robbery Guidelines for “Hybrid-Location” Robberies; Youth Discounts upheld on Unduly Lenient Sentence review Introduction In Ashfaq, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim...
“One Project – One Public Notice” : The High Court clarifies that Environmental Impact Assessment publicity must cover wind-farm grid connections – Commentary on North Westmeath Turbine Action Group v. An Bord Pleanála & Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála  [2025] IEHC 367

“One Project – One Public Notice” : The High Court clarifies that Environmental Impact Assessment publicity must cover wind-farm grid connections – Commentary on North Westmeath Turbine Action Group v. An Bord Pleanála & Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 367

Date: Jun 17, 2025
“One Project – One Public Notice” The High Court clarifies that Environmental Impact Assessment publicity must cover wind-farm grid connections Commentary on North Westmeath Turbine Action Group &...
The “Real Beneficiary” Rule in Credit-Hire Litigation: Non-Party Costs Liability after Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd

The “Real Beneficiary” Rule in Credit-Hire Litigation: Non-Party Costs Liability after Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd

Date: Jun 16, 2025
The “Real Beneficiary” Rule in Credit-Hire Litigation: Non-Party Costs Liability of Credit-Hire Companies under QOCS Introduction Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd ([2025] EWCA Civ 733)...
Beyond Conclusive Grounds: BMJ v R and the Limits of Modern-Slavery Defences in Serious Drug Cases

Beyond Conclusive Grounds: BMJ v R and the Limits of Modern-Slavery Defences in Serious Drug Cases

Date: Jun 16, 2025
Beyond Conclusive Grounds: BMJ v R and the Limits of Modern-Slavery Defences in Serious Drug Cases 1. Introduction BMJ v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 716) is the latest Court of Appeal decision to grapple...
Case Commentary – Vince v Secretary of State for Transport (2025):  The Court of Appeal Affirms the Purely Discretionary Status of s.18 Traffic Management Act Guidance and Sets a “Low-Intensity” Threshold for Challenges to its Withdrawal

Case Commentary – Vince v Secretary of State for Transport (2025): The Court of Appeal Affirms the Purely Discretionary Status of s.18 Traffic Management Act Guidance and Sets a “Low-Intensity” Threshold for Challenges to its Withdrawal

Date: Jun 14, 2025
Vince v Secretary of State for Transport (Court of Appeal, 2025) Key Principle: Guidance issued under s.18 Traffic Management Act 2004 is wholly discretionary; its withdrawal is a matter of...

        The “Singh Clarification”: Correcting Statutory-Maximum Breaches and Disqualification
        Calculations in Dangerous-Driving Sentences

The “Singh Clarification”: Correcting Statutory-Maximum Breaches and Disqualification Calculations in Dangerous-Driving Sentences

Date: Jun 14, 2025
The “Singh Clarification”: Correcting Statutory-Maximum Breaches and Disqualification Calculations in Dangerous-Driving Sentences 1. Introduction Singh, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 828) arises from a...
Separated co-parents living in two households can be a “relevant couple” for joint adoption: a purposive construction of section 29(3)(d) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007

Separated co-parents living in two households can be a “relevant couple” for joint adoption: a purposive construction of section 29(3)(d) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007

Date: Jun 14, 2025
Separated co-parents living in two households can be a “relevant couple” for joint adoption: a purposive construction of section 29(3)(d) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 Case:...
“True-or-False” Compliance with Funding Certificates: Kireeva v Zolotova & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 847

“True-or-False” Compliance with Funding Certificates: Kireeva v Zolotova & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 847

Date: Jun 13, 2025
“True-or-False” Compliance with Funding Certificates: Kireeva v Zolotova & Anor – A New Strictness in Unless Orders 1. Introduction The Court of Appeal’s decision in Kireeva v Zolotova & Basel...
Limiting Personal Mitigation and Clarifying Sentence Ranges in Historic Child-Sex Penetration Cases – Commentary on R v Anderson [2025] NICA 33

Limiting Personal Mitigation and Clarifying Sentence Ranges in Historic Child-Sex Penetration Cases – Commentary on R v Anderson [2025] NICA 33

Date: Jun 13, 2025
Limiting Personal Mitigation and Clarifying Sentence Ranges in Historic Child-Sex Penetration Cases – Commentary on R v Anderson [2025] NICA 33 Introduction The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s...
The Ryanair v. Skyscanner Discovery Precedent: Embedding Proportionality, Sampling, and Temporal Reach in High-Tech Competition Litigation

The Ryanair v. Skyscanner Discovery Precedent: Embedding Proportionality, Sampling, and Temporal Reach in High-Tech Competition Litigation

Date: Jun 12, 2025
The Ryanair v. Skyscanner Discovery Precedent: Embedding Proportionality, Sampling, and Temporal Reach in High-Tech Competition Litigation 1. Introduction The High Court’s judgment in Ryanair DAC v....
Pepper Finance v O’Reilly – The High Court Clarifies the Evidential Threshold and Discovery Limits in s.62(7) Possession Actions

Pepper Finance v O’Reilly – The High Court Clarifies the Evidential Threshold and Discovery Limits in s.62(7) Possession Actions

Date: Jun 12, 2025
Pepper Finance v O’Reilly – The High Court Clarifies the Evidential Threshold and Discovery Limits in s.62(7) Possession Actions 1. Introduction Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (“Pepper”)...
“Qualified Finality” — The Limited Reach of Res Judicata in Scottish Mental-Health Tribunal Appeals

“Qualified Finality” — The Limited Reach of Res Judicata in Scottish Mental-Health Tribunal Appeals

Date: Jun 12, 2025
“Qualified Finality” — The Limited Reach of Res Judicata in Scottish Mental-Health Tribunal Appeals 1. Introduction In Dr Agnes Louise Johnston v GA and another ([2025] CSIH 18) the Inner House of...
Atlantic Endeavour v OPW ([2025] IEHC 324): Contractual Duration as the Determinant for Lifting Automatic Suspensions under the 2017 Review Procedures Regulations

Atlantic Endeavour v OPW ([2025] IEHC 324): Contractual Duration as the Determinant for Lifting Automatic Suspensions under the 2017 Review Procedures Regulations

Date: Jun 12, 2025
Atlantic Endeavour Ltd & Anor v Office of Public Works ([2025] IEHC 324) “Contractual Duration as the Determinant for Lifting Automatic Suspensions” 1. Introduction This High Court decision,...
Promptness Prevails: Surrey CC v BC (2025) – Curtailing the “Continuing Duty” Doctrine and Reinforcing CPR 54.5 in Children-Act Judicial Reviews

Promptness Prevails: Surrey CC v BC (2025) – Curtailing the “Continuing Duty” Doctrine and Reinforcing CPR 54.5 in Children-Act Judicial Reviews

Date: Jun 12, 2025
Promptness Prevails: Surrey CC v BC (2025) – Curtailing the “Continuing Duty” Doctrine and Reinforcing CPR 54.5 in Children-Act Judicial Reviews 1. Introduction In Surrey County Council v BC ([2025]...

        “Injurious Affection” Re-Defined:  The Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Compensation
        under s.53 Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 – O’Reilly v. ESB  [2025] IESC 27

“Injurious Affection” Re-Defined: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Compensation under s.53 Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 – O’Reilly v. ESB [2025] IESC 27

Date: Jun 12, 2025
“Injurious Affection” Re-Defined: Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Compensation for Electricity Wayleaves in Ireland 1. Introduction On 5 June 2025 the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling...
“Reason to Believe” and Appellate Deference under CPR 6.9: A Commentary on Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 713

“Reason to Believe” and Appellate Deference under CPR 6.9: A Commentary on Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 713

Date: Jun 12, 2025
“Reason to Believe” and Appellate Deference under CPR 6.9: A Commentary on Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 713 1. Introduction Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“Carr”)...
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