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

3d Circuit Case Commentaries

Retaliatory Enforcement of Residency Ordinance: Hill v. City of Scranton

Retaliatory Enforcement of Residency Ordinance: Hill v. City of Scranton

Date: Jun 10, 2005
Retaliatory Enforcement of Residency Ordinance: Hill v. City of Scranton Introduction Hill v. City of Scranton is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third...
Affirmation of Qualified Immunity Based on Probable Cause in Criminal Trespass Arrest: Wright v. City of Philadelphia

Affirmation of Qualified Immunity Based on Probable Cause in Criminal Trespass Arrest: Wright v. City of Philadelphia

Date: Jun 7, 2005
Affirmation of Qualified Immunity Based on Probable Cause in Criminal Trespass Arrest: Wright v. City of Philadelphia Introduction Wright v. City of Philadelphia is a pivotal case adjudicated by the...
Establishing the Duty to Hold Evidentiary Hearings on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Establishing the Duty to Hold Evidentiary Hearings on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Date: Jun 7, 2005
Establishing the Duty to Hold Evidentiary Hearings on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Introduction The case of United States of America v. Marcresse McCoy, decided by...
Remand for Asylum Eligibility: Voci v. Gonzales Establishes Importance of Detailed BIA Analysis

Remand for Asylum Eligibility: Voci v. Gonzales Establishes Importance of Detailed BIA Analysis

Date: Jun 7, 2005
Remand for Asylum Eligibility: Voci v. Gonzales Establishes Importance of Detailed BIA Analysis Introduction The case Alket Voci v. Alberto Gonzales, adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals...
Reversing Summary Judgment on Age Discrimination and Retaliation: Fasold v. County of Montgomery

Reversing Summary Judgment on Age Discrimination and Retaliation: Fasold v. County of Montgomery

Date: Jun 2, 2005
Reversing Summary Judgment on Age Discrimination and Retaliation: Fasold v. County of Montgomery Introduction In the landmark case of Robert Fasold v. Edmund Justice et al., the United States Court...
Justifiable Reliance in Insurance Misrepresentation: The Tran v. MetLife Case

Justifiable Reliance in Insurance Misrepresentation: The Tran v. MetLife Case

Date: May 26, 2005
Justifiable Reliance in Insurance Misrepresentation: The Tran v. MetLife Case Introduction The case of Huu Nam Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Kwok Lam (408 F.3d 130) presents a...
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Upholds State Foreclosure Judgments Against Bankruptcy Court Challenge: In re: Pamela Knapper

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Upholds State Foreclosure Judgments Against Bankruptcy Court Challenge: In re: Pamela Knapper

Date: May 25, 2005
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Upholds State Foreclosure Judgments Against Bankruptcy Court Challenge: In re: Pamela Knapper Introduction In re: Pamela Knapper, f/k/a Pamela Jones, Pamela Knapper; William...
Enforcement of Sick Leave Policies Under FMLA: Insights from Callison v. City of Philadelphia

Enforcement of Sick Leave Policies Under FMLA: Insights from Callison v. City of Philadelphia

Date: May 20, 2005
Enforcement of Sick Leave Policies Under FMLA: Insights from Callison v. City of Philadelphia Case: Callison, Appellant, v. City of Philadelphia Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit...
Non-Retroactivity of Booker v. United States in Section 2255 Motions: Analysis of Garry D. Lloyd v. USA

Non-Retroactivity of Booker v. United States in Section 2255 Motions: Analysis of Garry D. Lloyd v. USA

Date: May 18, 2005
Non-Retroactivity of Booker in §2255 Motions: Analysis of Garry D. Lloyd v. United States Introduction Garry D. Lloyd v. United States is a significant case decided by the United States Court of...
Sua Sponte Application of AEDPA Statute of Limitations in §2255 Cases Established by United States v. Bendolph

Sua Sponte Application of AEDPA Statute of Limitations in §2255 Cases Established by United States v. Bendolph

Date: May 17, 2005
Sua Sponte Application of AEDPA Statute of Limitations in §2255 Cases Established by United States v. Bendolph Introduction In the landmark decision United States of America v. Herbert L. Bendolph,...
Finality and Appealability of Conditional Dismissals in Light of Statute of Limitations: Brennan v. Kulick

Finality and Appealability of Conditional Dismissals in Light of Statute of Limitations: Brennan v. Kulick

Date: May 14, 2005
Finality and Appealability of Conditional Dismissals in Light of Statute of Limitations: Brennan v. Kulick Introduction Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603 (3d Cir. 2005), addresses the critical issue of...
Affirming the Non-Seizure of Trial Attendance under the Fourth Amendment: DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood

Affirming the Non-Seizure of Trial Attendance under the Fourth Amendment: DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood

Date: May 13, 2005
Affirming the Non-Seizure of Trial Attendance under the Fourth Amendment: DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood Introduction In the landmark case of Robert DiBella and John McLaughlin v. Borough of...
Consent to Search and Plea Agreement Waivers Upheld in United States v. Rogers Lockett

Consent to Search and Plea Agreement Waivers Upheld in United States v. Rogers Lockett

Date: May 6, 2005
Consent to Search and Plea Agreement Waivers Upheld in United States v. Rogers Lockett Introduction United States v. Rogers Lockett, III is a significant case adjudicated by the United States Court...
Untimely Claims and Grievance Procedures in Employment Discrimination Cases: The Podobnik v. USPS Decision

Untimely Claims and Grievance Procedures in Employment Discrimination Cases: The Podobnik v. USPS Decision

Date: May 6, 2005
Untimely Claims and Grievance Procedures in Employment Discrimination Cases: The Podobnik v. USPS Decision Introduction In the landmark case of Philip J. Podobnik v. United States Postal Service...
Affirming the Five-Part Test for Informal Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Proceedings – Hefta v. American Classic Voyages Co.

Affirming the Five-Part Test for Informal Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Proceedings – Hefta v. American Classic Voyages Co.

Date: Apr 28, 2005
Affirming the Five-Part Test for Informal Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Proceedings – Hefta v. American Classic Voyages Co. Introduction The case of Scott Hefta v. Official Committee of Unsecured...
Third Circuit Affirms AEDPA §2244: Defining 'Second or Successive' Habeas Petitions Through Abuse of the Writ Doctrine

Third Circuit Affirms AEDPA §2244: Defining 'Second or Successive' Habeas Petitions Through Abuse of the Writ Doctrine

Date: Apr 22, 2005
Third Circuit Affirms AEDPA §2244: Defining 'Second or Successive' Habeas Petitions Through Abuse of the Writ Doctrine Introduction In the case of Robert Benchoff v. Raymond Colleran (404 F.3d 812),...
Third Circuit Upholds Minimal Commerce Effect Requirement under Hobbs Act in United States v. Urban et al.

Third Circuit Upholds Minimal Commerce Effect Requirement under Hobbs Act in United States v. Urban et al.

Date: Apr 21, 2005
Third Circuit Upholds Minimal Commerce Effect Requirement under Hobbs Act in United States v. Urban et al. Introduction The case of United States of America v. Thomas Urban et al. (Appellants No....
Third Circuit Expands Equitable Tolling in Admiralty Claims under the Suits in Admiralty Act

Third Circuit Expands Equitable Tolling in Admiralty Claims under the Suits in Admiralty Act

Date: Apr 16, 2005
Third Circuit Expands Equitable Tolling in Admiralty Claims under the Suits in Admiralty Act Introduction In the case of Dean Hedges v. United States of America; Environmental Moorings International,...
Third Circuit Applies Federal Discovery Rule for Accrual in ERISA Non-Fiduciary Duty Claims

Third Circuit Applies Federal Discovery Rule for Accrual in ERISA Non-Fiduciary Duty Claims

Date: Apr 15, 2005
Third Circuit Applies Federal Discovery Rule for Accrual in ERISA Non-Fiduciary Duty Claims Introduction In Romero v. Allstate Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit...
Navigating Procedural Defaults and Jury Instruction Errors in Capital Habeas Petitions: Insights from Bronshtein v. Horn

Navigating Procedural Defaults and Jury Instruction Errors in Capital Habeas Petitions: Insights from Bronshtein v. Horn

Date: Apr 15, 2005
Navigating Procedural Defaults and Jury Instruction Errors in Capital Habeas Petitions: Insights from Bronshtein v. Horn Introduction The case of Antuan Bronshtein v. Martin L. Horn represents 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