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

Adoption and Limitations of the Fleet Seaman Doctrine in Jones Act Claims: Reeves v. Mobile Dredging Pumping Company, Inc.

Adoption and Limitations of the Fleet Seaman Doctrine in Jones Act Claims: Reeves v. Mobile Dredging Pumping Company, Inc.

Date: Jun 14, 1994
Adoption and Limitations of the Fleet Seaman Doctrine in Jones Act Claims: Reeves v. Mobile Dredging Pumping Company, Inc. Introduction The case of Albert C. Reeves and Dolores Reeves v. Mobile...
Defining Employer Liability in Sexual Harassment Cases: BMW of North America v. Trude Bouton

Defining Employer Liability in Sexual Harassment Cases: BMW of North America v. Trude Bouton

Date: Jun 11, 1994
Defining Employer Liability in Sexual Harassment Cases: BMW of North America v. Trude Bouton Introduction The case of Trude S. Bouton v. BMW of North America, Inc. addresses critical issues...
Defining 'Lascivious Exhibition' Beyond Nudity: The Knox Decision

Defining 'Lascivious Exhibition' Beyond Nudity: The Knox Decision

Date: Jun 10, 1994
Defining 'Lascivious Exhibition' Beyond Nudity: The Knox Decision Introduction In the landmark case of United States of America v. Stephen A. Knox, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third...
Knowledge of Illegality in Currency Structuring: Retos v. United States

Knowledge of Illegality in Currency Structuring: Retos v. United States

Date: Jun 9, 1994
Knowledge of Illegality in Currency Structuring: Retos v. United States Introduction United States of America v. George Retos, Jr., 25 F.3d 1220 (3d Cir. 1994), is a pivotal case that underscores the...
Affirmation of Money Laundering Convictions in United States v. Carr: Insights into Circumstantial Evidence and Sentencing Guidelines

Affirmation of Money Laundering Convictions in United States v. Carr: Insights into Circumstantial Evidence and Sentencing Guidelines

Date: Jun 4, 1994
Affirmation of Money Laundering Convictions in United States v. Carr: Insights into Circumstantial Evidence and Sentencing Guidelines Introduction The case of United States of America v. Robert...
Extended Protection Against Retaliation: Retaliation Claims Under Title VII Post-Employment

Extended Protection Against Retaliation: Retaliation Claims Under Title VII Post-Employment

Date: Jun 2, 1994
Extended Protection Against Retaliation: Retaliation Claims Under Title VII Post-Employment Introduction The case of Ann Mery Charlton v. Paramus Board of Education et al. (25 F.3d 194) addresses...
Limitations on Preclusion Orders in Civil Litigation Invoking the Fifth Amendment: Insights from SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc.

Limitations on Preclusion Orders in Civil Litigation Invoking the Fifth Amendment: Insights from SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc.

Date: Jun 2, 1994
Limitations on Preclusion Orders in Civil Litigation Invoking the Fifth Amendment: Insights from SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc. Introduction SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc. is a pivotal case adjudicated by...
Excusing Exhaustion Requirements Due to Inordinate Delay: Stanton T. Story v. Warden Tom Kindt

Excusing Exhaustion Requirements Due to Inordinate Delay: Stanton T. Story v. Warden Tom Kindt

Date: May 28, 1994
Excusing Exhaustion Requirements Due to Inordinate Delay: Stanton T. Story v. Warden Tom Kindt Introduction Stanton T. Story v. Warden Tom Kindt; Attorney General Preate is a seminal case adjudicated...
Enhancing Intervention Rights under CERCLA §113(i): Insights from United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc.

Enhancing Intervention Rights under CERCLA §113(i): Insights from United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc.

Date: May 26, 1994
Enhancing Intervention Rights under CERCLA §113(i): Insights from United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc. Introduction The case of United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc. and associated...
Reversing Fiduciary Breaches: Insights from Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd.

Reversing Fiduciary Breaches: Insights from Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd.

Date: May 26, 1994
Reversing Fiduciary Breaches: Insights from Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd. Introduction The case of Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd., decided by the United States Court of Appeals...
Retrospective Application of Prehire Labor Agreements: Laborers' International Union v. Foster Wheeler Corporation

Retrospective Application of Prehire Labor Agreements: Laborers' International Union v. Foster Wheeler Corporation

Date: May 21, 1994
Retrospective Application of Prehire Labor Agreements: Laborers' International Union v. Foster Wheeler Corporation Introduction The case of Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO v....
Intent to Deprive: Interpreting Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 545

Intent to Deprive: Interpreting Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 545

Date: May 19, 1994
Intent to Deprive: Interpreting Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 545 Introduction In the case of United States of America v. Thekkedajh Peethamb Menon, decided on May 18, 1994, by the United States Court of...
Reasonable Interpretation of §6103(h)(5) and Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Copple

Reasonable Interpretation of §6103(h)(5) and Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Copple

Date: May 18, 1994
Reasonable Interpretation of §6103(h)(5) and Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Copple Introduction United States v. Copple (24 F.3d 535), adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for...
Clarifying State Action Doctrine: ACGME's Accreditation Decisions Do Not Constitute State Action

Clarifying State Action Doctrine: ACGME's Accreditation Decisions Do Not Constitute State Action

Date: May 18, 1994
Clarifying State Action Doctrine: ACGME's Accreditation Decisions Do Not Constitute State Action Introduction In the landmark case of McKeesport Hospital v. The Accreditation Council for Graduate...
Affirmation of 'Dangerous Probability' Standard in Attempted Monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2

Affirmation of 'Dangerous Probability' Standard in Attempted Monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2

Date: May 17, 1994
Affirmation of 'Dangerous Probability' Standard in Attempted Monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2 Introduction The case of Gary L. Pastore and National Security Systems Corporation (NASSCO) v....
Comprehensive Interpretation of 'Loss of Use' and 'Tangible Property' in CGL Policies: Insights from Lucker Manufacturing v. The Home Insurance Company

Comprehensive Interpretation of 'Loss of Use' and 'Tangible Property' in CGL Policies: Insights from Lucker Manufacturing v. The Home Insurance Company

Date: May 13, 1994
Comprehensive Interpretation of 'Loss of Use' and 'Tangible Property' in CGL Policies: Insights from Lucker Manufacturing v. The Home Insurance Company Introduction Lucker Manufacturing, a Unit of...
Reaffirmation of Clear and Convincing Standard for Bad Faith Claims in Insurance under Pennsylvania Law

Reaffirmation of Clear and Convincing Standard for Bad Faith Claims in Insurance under Pennsylvania Law

Date: May 11, 1994
Reaffirmation of Clear and Convincing Standard for Bad Faith Claims in Insurance under Pennsylvania Law Introduction The case of Regina Polselli; Rudolph T. Polselli v. Nationwide Mutual Fire...
Limitations on Nationwide Class Certification in Immigration Habeas Corpus Proceedings: Pan v. INS

Limitations on Nationwide Class Certification in Immigration Habeas Corpus Proceedings: Pan v. INS

Date: May 6, 1994
Limitations on Nationwide Class Certification in Immigration Habeas Corpus Proceedings: Pan v. INS Introduction The case of Yong Zhong Pan v. INS addresses significant issues regarding class action...
Affirmation of D’Oench Duhme Doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) in Upholding FDIC's Enforcement of Written Promissory Notes

Affirmation of D’Oench Duhme Doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) in Upholding FDIC's Enforcement of Written Promissory Notes

Date: May 6, 1994
Affirmation of D’Oench Duhme Doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) in Upholding FDIC's Enforcement of Written Promissory Notes Introduction The case of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) v....
Establishing Attorney Liability for Misrepresentations and Omissions in Securities Opinion Letters under Rule 10b-5

Establishing Attorney Liability for Misrepresentations and Omissions in Securities Opinion Letters under Rule 10b-5

Date: May 3, 1994
Establishing Attorney Liability for Misrepresentations and Omissions in Securities Opinion Letters under Rule 10b-5 Introduction The case of Ernest P. Kline; Eugene Knopf; Steven R. Wojdak v. First...
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