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
  • Judgments

11th Circuit Case Commentaries

Qualified Immunity in Substantive Due Process: Distinguishing Professional and Non-Professional State Employees

Qualified Immunity in Substantive Due Process: Distinguishing Professional and Non-Professional State Employees

Date: Apr 6, 2000
Qualified Immunity in Substantive Due Process: Distinguishing Professional and Non-Professional State Employees Introduction In the landmark case Kyle K., Larry K., Personally, et al.,...
Punitive Damages Excluded in FLSA Retaliation Claims: Snapp v. Ramshackle's Café, Inc.

Punitive Damages Excluded in FLSA Retaliation Claims: Snapp v. Ramshackle's Café, Inc.

Date: Apr 6, 2000
Punitive Damages Excluded in FLSA Retaliation Claims: Snapp v. Ramshackle's Café, Inc. Introduction In Brian Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc. d.b.a. Ramshackle's Café, 208 F.3d 928 (11th Cir. 2000),...
Establishing Clear Standards on Qualified Immunity and the Duty to Intervene in Excessive Force Cases: Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

Establishing Clear Standards on Qualified Immunity and the Duty to Intervene in Excessive Force Cases: Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

Date: Apr 5, 2000
Establishing Clear Standards on Qualified Immunity and the Duty to Intervene in Excessive Force Cases: Priester v. City of Riviera Beach Introduction Priester v. City of Riviera Beach is a landmark...
A Comprehensive Commentary on A.M. Alexander et al. v. Fulton County Georgia: Establishing New Precedents in Racial Employment Discrimination and Qualified Immunity

A Comprehensive Commentary on A.M. Alexander et al. v. Fulton County Georgia: Establishing New Precedents in Racial Employment Discrimination and Qualified Immunity

Date: Mar 31, 2000
A Comprehensive Commentary on A.M. Alexander et al. v. Fulton County Georgia: Establishing New Precedents in Racial Employment Discrimination and Qualified Immunity Introduction The case of A.M....
Punctuality as an Essential Job Function in ADA Claims: Insights from Earl v. Mervyns, Inc.

Punctuality as an Essential Job Function in ADA Claims: Insights from Earl v. Mervyns, Inc.

Date: Mar 31, 2000
Punctuality as an Essential Job Function in ADA Claims: Insights from Earl v. Mervyns, Inc. Introduction The case of Debra K. Earl v. Mervyns Inc. (207 F.3d 1361) presents a critical examination of...
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Alabama's Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Insurance Brokers and Limits on Mental Anguish Damages for Breach of Insurance Contracts

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Alabama's Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Insurance Brokers and Limits on Mental Anguish Damages for Breach of Insurance Contracts

Date: Mar 31, 2000
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Alabama's Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Insurance Brokers and Limits on Mental Anguish Damages for Breach of Insurance Contracts Introduction In the case of Eladio...
Establishing the De Minimis Force Principle in Excessive Force Claims: Nolin v. Isbell

Establishing the De Minimis Force Principle in Excessive Force Claims: Nolin v. Isbell

Date: Mar 29, 2000
Establishing the De Minimis Force Principle in Excessive Force Claims: Nolin v. Isbell Introduction In Nathan Nolin v. Christopher Isbell, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the...
Assessment of Civil Contempt in FTC Enforcement: McGregor v. Chierico

Assessment of Civil Contempt in FTC Enforcement: McGregor v. Chierico

Date: Mar 25, 2000
Assessment of Civil Contempt in FTC Enforcement: McGregor v. Chierico Introduction The case of McGregor v. Chierico adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on March...
Nondischargeability of Tax Debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C): A Comprehensive Analysis of In re: Leroy Charles Griffith

Nondischargeability of Tax Debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C): A Comprehensive Analysis of In re: Leroy Charles Griffith

Date: Mar 25, 2000
Nondischargeability of Tax Debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C): A Comprehensive Analysis of In re: Leroy Charles Griffith Introduction The case of In re: Leroy Charles Griffith, Debtor, heard by the...
Qualified Immunity and the Boundaries of Reasonable Suspicion: Insights from Jackson v. City of Atlanta

Qualified Immunity and the Boundaries of Reasonable Suspicion: Insights from Jackson v. City of Atlanta

Date: Mar 18, 2000
Qualified Immunity and the Boundaries of Reasonable Suspicion: Insights from Jackson v. City of Atlanta Introduction The case of Brenda L. Jackson, as Surviving Mother and Administratrix of the...
Procedural Default and Brady Obligations: 11th Circuit Affirms Denial of Habeas Relief in Mincey v. Head

Procedural Default and Brady Obligations: 11th Circuit Affirms Denial of Habeas Relief in Mincey v. Head

Date: Mar 17, 2000
Procedural Default and Brady Obligations: 11th Circuit Affirms Denial of Habeas Relief in Mincey v. Head Introduction In the case of Terry Michael Mincey v. Frederick J. Head, decided by the United...
Federal Court Upholds FDCPA and FCCPA Claims in HMO Debt Collection: Kaplan v. Assetcare, Inc.

Federal Court Upholds FDCPA and FCCPA Claims in HMO Debt Collection: Kaplan v. Assetcare, Inc.

Date: Mar 15, 2000
Federal Court Upholds FDCPA and FCCPA Claims in HMO Debt Collection: Kaplan v. Assetcare, Inc. Introduction The case of Andrew Kaplan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,...
Reed v. The Heil Company: Federal Jurisdiction Limits Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and ADA Interpretation

Reed v. The Heil Company: Federal Jurisdiction Limits Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and ADA Interpretation

Date: Mar 15, 2000
Reed v. The Heil Company: Federal Jurisdiction Limits Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and ADA Interpretation Introduction The case of William Bruce Reed v. The Heil Company, decided by the United States...
Mandated Overtime as Essential Function Under ADA: Mar v. Davis

Mandated Overtime as Essential Function Under ADA: Mar v. Davis

Date: Mar 11, 2000
Mandated Overtime as Essential Function Under ADA: Mar v. Davis Introduction Marvin Davis filed a lawsuit against Florida Power Light Company (FPL), alleging employment discrimination under the...
Affirming Justification Defense in § 922(g)(1) Cases: Deleveaux v. United States

Affirming Justification Defense in § 922(g)(1) Cases: Deleveaux v. United States

Date: Mar 10, 2000
Affirming Justification Defense in § 922(g)(1) Cases: Deleveaux v. United States Introduction The case of United States of America v. James Vincent Deleveaux (205 F.3d 1292), adjudicated by the...
Excessive Damages Award in Maritime Negligence Case: Frederick v. Kirby Tankships

Excessive Damages Award in Maritime Negligence Case: Frederick v. Kirby Tankships

Date: Mar 9, 2000
Excessive Damages Award in Maritime Negligence Case: Frederick v. Kirby Tankships Introduction Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc. (205 F.3d 1277) is a significant appellate decision by the United...
Overriding the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine: McANDREW v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Establishes Exception for Criminal Conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)

Overriding the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine: McANDREW v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Establishes Exception for Criminal Conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)

Date: Mar 9, 2000
Overriding the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine: McANDREW v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Establishes Exception for Criminal Conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) Introduction McANDREW v. LOCKHEED...
Interpreting "Same or Related Wrongful Acts" in Insurance Policies: Insights from Continental Casualty v. Wendt

Interpreting "Same or Related Wrongful Acts" in Insurance Policies: Insights from Continental Casualty v. Wendt

Date: Mar 8, 2000
Interpreting "Same or Related Wrongful Acts" in Insurance Policies: Insights from Continental Casualty Company v. Wendt Introduction The case of Continental Casualty Company v. Bernard Wendt,...
Affirmation of Conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2): No Requirement to Prove Actual Manufacture of Controlled Substances

Affirmation of Conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2): No Requirement to Prove Actual Manufacture of Controlled Substances

Date: Mar 8, 2000
Affirmation of Conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2): No Requirement to Prove Actual Manufacture of Controlled Substances Introduction The case of United States of America v. Vernon Victor Prather,...
Affirmation of Conspiracy Conviction and Reasonable Investigative Detention in United States v. Gil

Affirmation of Conspiracy Conviction and Reasonable Investigative Detention in United States v. Gil

Date: Mar 4, 2000
Affirmation of Conspiracy Conviction and Reasonable Investigative Detention in United States v. Gil Introduction In the case of United States of America v. Lourdes Gil (204 F.3d 1347, 11th Cir....
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