Log In
  • US
  • 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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • 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
  • Judgments

10th Circuit Case Commentaries

Reaffirmation of the Rehaif Standard: Knowledge of Felony Status Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Berris

Reaffirmation of the Rehaif Standard: Knowledge of Felony Status Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Berris

Date: May 13, 2025
Reaffirmation of the Rehaif Standard: Knowledge of Felony Status Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Berris Introduction United States v. Berris, 10th Cir. No. 24-8065 (May 12, 2025),...
NEPA Hard Look Requirement: Prohibiting Arbitrary Agency Departures from Model‐Based Risk Assessments

NEPA Hard Look Requirement: Prohibiting Arbitrary Agency Departures from Model‐Based Risk Assessments

Date: May 10, 2025
NEPA Hard Look Requirement: Prohibiting Arbitrary Agency Departures from Model‐Based Risk Assessments Introduction In WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. No. 24-1187 (May 9, 2025),...
Mandating the Jones Balancing Test Under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) in Supervised Release Revocation Hearings

Mandating the Jones Balancing Test Under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) in Supervised Release Revocation Hearings

Date: May 9, 2025
Mandating the Jones Balancing Test Under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) in Supervised Release Revocation Hearings Introduction This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Martinez,...
Establishing Internet-Use Controls in Supervised Release: Prior Authorization & Monitoring-Software Conditions Upheld in United States v. Kornacki

Establishing Internet-Use Controls in Supervised Release: Prior Authorization & Monitoring-Software Conditions Upheld in United States v. Kornacki

Date: May 9, 2025
Establishing Internet-Use Controls in Supervised Release: Prior Authorization & Monitoring-Software Conditions Upheld in United States v. Kornacki Introduction United States v. Kornacki, decided May...
Standards for Prior-Authorization and Monitoring-Software Conditions on Internet-Capable Devices in Supervised Release

Standards for Prior-Authorization and Monitoring-Software Conditions on Internet-Capable Devices in Supervised Release

Date: May 9, 2025
Standards for Prior-Authorization and Monitoring-Software Conditions on Internet-Capable Devices in Supervised Release 1. Introduction This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United...
Enforcing Tailored Internet Restrictions in Supervised Release: United States v. Kornacki (10th Cir. 2025)

Enforcing Tailored Internet Restrictions in Supervised Release: United States v. Kornacki (10th Cir. 2025)

Date: May 9, 2025
Enforcing Tailored Internet Restrictions in Supervised Release: United States v. Kornacki (10th Cir. 2025) Introduction United States v. Kornacki, decided May 8, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, addresses...
United States v. Kristich: Affirmation of the Three-Step Compassionate Release Framework and Appellate Waiver Principles

United States v. Kristich: Affirmation of the Three-Step Compassionate Release Framework and Appellate Waiver Principles

Date: May 9, 2025
United States v. Kristich: Affirmation of the Three-Step Compassionate Release Framework and Appellate Waiver Principles Introduction United States v. Kristich, decided May 8, 2025, by the Tenth...
Ensuring Personal Jurisdiction and Deliberate Indifference Standards in §1983 Actions: Guébara v. Bascue

Ensuring Personal Jurisdiction and Deliberate Indifference Standards in §1983 Actions: Guébara v. Bascue

Date: May 9, 2025
Ensuring Personal Jurisdiction and Deliberate Indifference Standards in §1983 Actions: Guébara v. Bascue Introduction Guebara v. Bascue is a 2025 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for...
Allowing Employer’s Interested-Witness Evidence at Summary Judgment in Discrimination Cases: New Rule in Mauldin v. Wormuth

Allowing Employer’s Interested-Witness Evidence at Summary Judgment in Discrimination Cases: New Rule in Mauldin v. Wormuth

Date: May 7, 2025
Allowing Employer’s Interested-Witness Evidence at Summary Judgment in Discrimination Cases: New Rule in Mauldin v. Wormuth Introduction Mauldin v. Wormuth (10th Cir. May 6, 2025) is a landmark...
Extension of Doyle: Prohibition on Using Post-Arrest Partial Silence for Impeachment

Extension of Doyle: Prohibition on Using Post-Arrest Partial Silence for Impeachment

Date: May 7, 2025
Extension of Doyle: Prohibition on Using Post-Arrest Partial Silence for Impeachment Introduction Case: United States v. Ward Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 6, 2025...
RFRA’s Express‐Authorization Exception to Consular Nonreviewability: Judicial Review of Visa Decisions

RFRA’s Express‐Authorization Exception to Consular Nonreviewability: Judicial Review of Visa Decisions

Date: May 7, 2025
RFRA’s Express‐Authorization Exception to Consular Nonreviewability: Judicial Review of Visa Decisions Introduction In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Rubio (10th Cir. 2025), a New Mexico church...
Discretionary Denial of § 3582(c)(2) Sentence Reduction for Violent Child-Abuse Offenses After Amendment 821

Discretionary Denial of § 3582(c)(2) Sentence Reduction for Violent Child-Abuse Offenses After Amendment 821

Date: May 6, 2025
Discretionary Denial of § 3582(c)(2) Sentence Reduction for Violent Child-Abuse Offenses After Amendment 821 Introduction United States v. Rose, No. 24-7079 (10th Cir. May 5, 2025), addresses whether...
Fonte v. Memorial Hospital: Incorporation of Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act Notice Requirement into EMTALA Actions

Fonte v. Memorial Hospital: Incorporation of Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act Notice Requirement into EMTALA Actions

Date: May 6, 2025
Fonte v. Memorial Hospital: Incorporation of Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act Notice Requirement into EMTALA Actions Introduction Fonte v. Memorial Hospital of Laramie County is a decision of the...
Preservation and Waiver of Procedural Reasonableness Challenges in Sentencing Appeals: United States v. Fuller

Preservation and Waiver of Procedural Reasonableness Challenges in Sentencing Appeals: United States v. Fuller

Date: May 6, 2025
Preservation and Waiver of Procedural Reasonableness Challenges in Sentencing Appeals: United States v. Fuller Introduction United States v. Fuller, decided May 5, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit,...
Qualified Immunity Denied for Unlawful Arrest and Excessive Force: The Pre-Shooting Conduct Standard in Ibarra v. Lee

Qualified Immunity Denied for Unlawful Arrest and Excessive Force: The Pre-Shooting Conduct Standard in Ibarra v. Lee

Date: May 6, 2025
Qualified Immunity Denied for Unlawful Arrest and Excessive Force: The Pre-Shooting Conduct Standard in Ibarra v. Lee Introduction Ibarra v. Lee, decided May 5, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, clarifies...
Clarifying COA Requirements and Ineffective Assistance Analysis under §2255: United States v. Guzman-Dominguez

Clarifying COA Requirements and Ineffective Assistance Analysis under §2255: United States v. Guzman-Dominguez

Date: May 3, 2025
Clarifying COA Requirements and Ineffective Assistance Analysis under §2255: United States v. Guzman-Dominguez Introduction United States v. Guzman-Dominguez, decided by the Tenth Circuit on May 2,...
Evidence‐Based Requirement for “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D): Consideration of Intra‐Country Relocation

Evidence‐Based Requirement for “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D): Consideration of Intra‐Country Relocation

Date: May 3, 2025
Evidence‐Based Requirement for “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D): Consideration of Intra‐Country Relocation Introduction Herrera-Arellano v. Garland is an...
AdHealth, Ltd. v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems: Unambiguous Definition of “Medical Incident” Limits Coverage to Individual Patient Claims

AdHealth, Ltd. v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems: Unambiguous Definition of “Medical Incident” Limits Coverage to Individual Patient Claims

Date: May 3, 2025
AdHealth, Ltd. v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems: Unambiguous Definition of “Medical Incident” Limits Coverage to Individual Patient Claims 1. Introduction In AdHealth, Limited v. PorterCare...
Clarifying “Maintenance” Under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12): Control, Duration, and Possessory Interest in Drug Premises Enhancement

Clarifying “Maintenance” Under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12): Control, Duration, and Possessory Interest in Drug Premises Enhancement

Date: May 3, 2025
Clarifying “Maintenance” Under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12): Control, Duration, and Possessory Interest in Drug Premises Enhancement Introduction United States v. Day (10th Cir. May 2, 2025) addresses a...
Minimal Explanatory Requirement for Within-Guidelines Sentences in § 3582(c)(2) Resentencing

Minimal Explanatory Requirement for Within-Guidelines Sentences in § 3582(c)(2) Resentencing

Date: May 1, 2025
Minimal Explanatory Requirement for Within-Guidelines Sentences in § 3582(c)(2) Resentencing Introduction United States v. Eagle, 10th Cir. No. 24-7040 (Apr. 30, 2025), addresses the scope of a...
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
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert