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

4th Circuit Case Commentaries

State Action Not Established in Private Student Harassment Case at The Citadel

State Action Not Established in Private Student Harassment Case at The Citadel

Date: May 8, 2001
State Action Not Established in Private Student Harassment Case at The Citadel Introduction In Jeanie Mentavlos v. John Justice Anderson et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth...
Fourth Amendment Protections of Curtilage Affirmed in Rogers v. Pendleton and Vinyard

Fourth Amendment Protections of Curtilage Affirmed in Rogers v. Pendleton and Vinyard

Date: May 5, 2001
Fourth Amendment Protections of Curtilage Affirmed in Rogers v. Pendleton and Vinyard Introduction The case Jonathan Rogers v. M.L. Pendleton, Officer; M.G. Vinyard, Officer, adjudicated by the...
Affirming Reasonable Use of Deadly Force: Cox v. County of Prince William

Affirming Reasonable Use of Deadly Force: Cox v. County of Prince William

Date: May 5, 2001
Affirming Reasonable Use of Deadly Force: Cox v. County of Prince William Introduction The case of Joan H. Cox, Individually, and as Widow and Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian J. Cox,...
Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera: Fourth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment, Reinforces Standards for Disability and Retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act

Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera: Fourth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment, Reinforces Standards for Disability and Retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act

Date: May 2, 2001
Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera: Fourth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment, Reinforces Standards for Disability and Retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act Introduction In the case of Cheryl M. Hooven-Lewis...
Excessive Investment Adviser Fees Must Relate to Services Rendered: Da v. d MIGDAL

Excessive Investment Adviser Fees Must Relate to Services Rendered: Da v. d MIGDAL

Date: May 2, 2001
Excessive Investment Adviser Fees Must Relate to Services Rendered: Da v. d MIGDAL Introduction In the landmark case of Da v. d MIGDAL (248 F.3d 321, 4th Cir. 2001), shareholders of two mutual funds...
Fourth Circuit Clarifies Federal Jurisdiction Limits under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act in Interstate Petroleum v. Morgan

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Federal Jurisdiction Limits under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act in Interstate Petroleum v. Morgan

Date: May 2, 2001
Fourth Circuit Clarifies Federal Jurisdiction Limits under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act in Interstate Petroleum v. Morgan Introduction The case of Interstate Petroleum Corporation v. Robert...
Expansion of Arbitration Clause Scope in Shareholder Agreements: D. Joseph Long v. Regency Home Fashions Inc.

Expansion of Arbitration Clause Scope in Shareholder Agreements: D. Joseph Long v. Regency Home Fashions Inc.

Date: Apr 28, 2001
Expansion of Arbitration Clause Scope in Shareholder Agreements: D. Joseph Long v. Regency Home Fashions Inc. Introduction The case of D. Joseph Long, individually and derivatively as a shareholder...
EX PARTE YOUNG Exception Limits Sovereign Immunity in State-Regulated Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

EX PARTE YOUNG Exception Limits Sovereign Immunity in State-Regulated Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

Date: Apr 25, 2001
EX PARTE YOUNG Exception Limits Sovereign Immunity in State-Regulated Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Introduction The case of Patricia Bragg et al. v. Tommy Moore et al. (248 F.3d 275, United States...
Affirmation of Evidence Exclusion in Impeachment Under Rules 613(b) and 403 in United States v. Young

Affirmation of Evidence Exclusion in Impeachment Under Rules 613(b) and 403 in United States v. Young

Date: Apr 21, 2001
Affirmation of Evidence Exclusion in Impeachment Under Rules 613(b) and 403 in United States v. Nathan Dante Young Introduction The case of United States of America v. Nathan Dante Young, 248 F.3d...
Establishing 'Pattern of Racketeering Activity' under RICO: Insights from GE Investment Private Placement Partners II v. Teddy Dale Parker

Establishing 'Pattern of Racketeering Activity' under RICO: Insights from GE Investment Private Placement Partners II v. Teddy Dale Parker

Date: Apr 19, 2001
Establishing 'Pattern of Racketeering Activity' under RICO: Insights from GE Investment Private Placement Partners II v. Teddy Dale Parker Introduction The case of GE Investment Private Placement...
Affirmation of AEDPA's One-Year Limitation and Apprendi's Non-Retroactive Application: The Sanders Case

Affirmation of AEDPA's One-Year Limitation and Apprendi's Non-Retroactive Application: The Sanders Case

Date: Apr 14, 2001
Affirmation of AEDPA's One-Year Limitation and Apprendi's Non-Retroactive Application: The Sanders Case Introduction The case of United States of America v. Sean Lamar Sanders (247 F.3d 139) presents...
Recognition of Hostile Work Environment Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Fox v. General Motors

Recognition of Hostile Work Environment Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Fox v. General Motors

Date: Apr 14, 2001
Recognition of Hostile Work Environment Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Fox v. General Motors Introduction Robert J. Fox v. General Motors Corporation is a landmark case adjudicated...
Establishing Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reasons under Title VII: Insights from Chung Shin v. Shalala

Establishing Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reasons under Title VII: Insights from Chung Shin v. Shalala

Date: Apr 14, 2001
Establishing Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reasons under Title VII: Insights from Chung Shin v. Shalala Introduction Chung Shin v. Shalala, 166 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D. Md. 2001), is a pivotal case...
Apprendi Implications in United States v. Strickland: Jurisdiction Over Drug Quantity Determinations

Apprendi Implications in United States v. Strickland: Jurisdiction Over Drug Quantity Determinations

Date: Apr 4, 2001
Apprendi Implications in United States v. Strickland: Jurisdiction Over Drug Quantity Determinations Introduction United States v. Strickland (245 F.3d 368, 4th Cir., 2001) represents a pivotal...
Constructive Possession and Interstate Commerce Nexus Affirmed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1): United States v. Gallimore

Constructive Possession and Interstate Commerce Nexus Affirmed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1): United States v. Gallimore

Date: Apr 3, 2001
Constructive Possession and Interstate Commerce Nexus Affirmed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1): United States v. Gallimore Introduction United States of America vs. Talton Young Gallimore, Jr. is a...
Right to Dual Counsel Affirmed in Capital Indictments: Insights from United States v. Boone

Right to Dual Counsel Affirmed in Capital Indictments: Insights from United States v. Boone

Date: Mar 31, 2001
Right to Dual Counsel Affirmed in Capital Indictments: Insights from United States v. Boone Introduction United States v. Boone (245 F.3d 352, 2001) is a pivotal decision by the United States Court...
Affirmation of Reasonable Perception Standard for Use of Deadly Force and Qualified Immunity Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983: Anderson v. Russell

Affirmation of Reasonable Perception Standard for Use of Deadly Force and Qualified Immunity Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983: Anderson v. Russell

Date: Mar 30, 2001
Affirmation of Reasonable Perception Standard for Use of Deadly Force and Qualified Immunity Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983: Anderson v. Russell Introduction The case of Major Maurice Anderson v. Officer...
Balancing Hardship and Likelihood of Success in Preliminary Injunctions: MicroStrategy v. Motorola

Balancing Hardship and Likelihood of Success in Preliminary Injunctions: MicroStrategy v. Motorola

Date: Mar 29, 2001
Balancing Hardship and Likelihood of Success in Preliminary Injunctions: MicroStrategy v. Motorola Introduction The case of MicroStrategy Incorporated v. Motorola, Incorporated, adjudicated by the...
Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions in Government Contracts: Insights from United States v. Bankers Insurance Company

Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions in Government Contracts: Insights from United States v. Bankers Insurance Company

Date: Mar 28, 2001
Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions in Government Contracts: Insights from United States v. Bankers Insurance Company Introduction The case of United States of America v. Bankers Insurance Company,...
Establishing Employer Liability in Hostile Work Environment Claims: Insights from EEOC v. RR Ventures

Establishing Employer Liability in Hostile Work Environment Claims: Insights from EEOC v. RR Ventures

Date: Mar 24, 2001
Establishing Employer Liability in Hostile Work Environment Claims: Insights from EEOC v. RR Ventures Introduction The legal landscape surrounding workplace harassment and employer liability has been...
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