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

Affirmation of Habeas Dismissal for Ineffective Counsel Claims under AEDPA Standards – Fisher v. Lee

Affirmation of Habeas Dismissal for Ineffective Counsel Claims under AEDPA Standards – Fisher v. Lee

Date: Jun 20, 2000
Affirmation of Habeas Dismissal for Ineffective Counsel Claims under AEDPA Standards – Fisher v. Lee Introduction Fisher v. Lee (215 F.3d 438, 4th Cir. 2000) presents a significant appellate decision...
Reframing Qualified Disability: EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills Establishes Compatibility Between SSDI Claims and ADA Protections

Reframing Qualified Disability: EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills Establishes Compatibility Between SSDI Claims and ADA Protections

Date: Jun 20, 2000
Reframing Qualified Disability: EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills Establishes Compatibility Between SSDI Claims and ADA Protections Introduction The case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v....
Distinguishing Between Class D and Class B Wire Fraud Felonies and Proper Restitution Procedures: Insights from United States v. Ubakanma and Onyekonwu

Distinguishing Between Class D and Class B Wire Fraud Felonies and Proper Restitution Procedures: Insights from United States v. Ubakanma and Onyekonwu

Date: Jun 13, 2000
Distinguishing Between Class D and Class B Wire Fraud Felonies and Proper Restitution Procedures: Insights from United States v. Ubakanma and Onyekonwu Introduction The case of United States of...
Qualified Immunity Affirmed in Wadkins v. Arnold: Establishing Standards for Law Enforcement Conduct

Qualified Immunity Affirmed in Wadkins v. Arnold: Establishing Standards for Law Enforcement Conduct

Date: Jun 3, 2000
Qualified Immunity Affirmed in Wadkins v. Arnold: Establishing Standards for Law Enforcement Conduct Introduction Wadkins v. Arnold, 214 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2000), is a pivotal case addressing the...
Scope of Employment Certification and Judicial Review under the Westfall Act: Insights from Borneman v. United States

Scope of Employment Certification and Judicial Review under the Westfall Act: Insights from Borneman v. United States

Date: May 31, 2000
Scope of Employment Certification and Judicial Review under the Westfall Act: Insights from Borneman v. United States Introduction The case of John Michael Borneman v. United States of America (213...
Enforcing Procedural Bars on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: McCarver v. Lee

Enforcing Procedural Bars on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: McCarver v. Lee

Date: May 24, 2000
Enforcing Procedural Bars on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: McCarver v. Lee Introduction Ernest P. McCarver v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, 221 F.3d 583 (4th...
Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Commercial Leases: Limiting Destructive Competition under Maryland Law - Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates

Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Commercial Leases: Limiting Destructive Competition under Maryland Law - Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates

Date: May 23, 2000
Implied Covenant of Good Faith in Commercial Leases: Limiting Destructive Competition under Maryland Law Introduction Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Limited Partnership is a pivotal...
Substance Over Label: Enforcing Exclusivity in Retail Leases – Commentary on Providence Square Associates v. Rite Aid

Substance Over Label: Enforcing Exclusivity in Retail Leases – Commentary on Providence Square Associates v. Rite Aid

Date: May 4, 2000
Substance Over Label: Enforcing Exclusivity in Retail Leases Introduction The case Providence Square Associates, L.L.C. v. Rite Aid, Inc. delves into the enforcement of exclusivity provisions within...
Exclusion of Defense Expert Witness in Death Penalty Sentencing: A Barnette Precedent

Exclusion of Defense Expert Witness in Death Penalty Sentencing: A Barnette Precedent

Date: May 3, 2000
Exclusion of Defense Expert Witness in Death Penalty Sentencing: A Barnette Precedent Introduction In United States of America v. Aquilia Marcivicci Barnette, 211 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2000), the United...
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Reinforced in Brown Root v. Breckenridge and Booker

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Reinforced in Brown Root v. Breckenridge and Booker

Date: May 3, 2000
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Reinforced in Brown Root v. Breckenridge and Booker Introduction In Brown Root, Incorporated v. Warren J. Breckenridge; Charles Lee Booker, 211 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2000), the...
Affirming the Necessity and Indispensability of Parties Under Rule 19: An Analysis of National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Rite Aid

Affirming the Necessity and Indispensability of Parties Under Rule 19: An Analysis of National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Rite Aid

Date: Apr 21, 2000
Affirming the Necessity and Indispensability of Parties Under Rule 19: An Analysis of National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Rite Aid Introduction In the case of National Union Fire Insurance Company...
Vacatur Standards in Mootness Cases: Insights from Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige

Vacatur Standards in Mootness Cases: Insights from Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige

Date: Apr 21, 2000
Vacatur Standards in Mootness Cases: Insights from Valero Terrestrial Corporation v. Paige Introduction The case of Valero Terrestrial Corporation; Lackawanna Transport Company; Solid Waste Services,...
Clagett v. Angelone: Application of AEDPA and Simmons Instruction in Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Clagett v. Angelone: Application of AEDPA and Simmons Instruction in Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Date: Apr 6, 2000
Clagett v. Angelone: Application of AEDPA and Simmons Instruction in Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings Introduction Clagett v. Angelone (209 F.3d 370, 4th Cir. 2000) presents a pivotal examination of...
AEDPA One-Year Limitation Strictly Enforced; Equitable Tolling Rejected for Counsel Misinterpretation in Harris v. Hutchinson

AEDPA One-Year Limitation Strictly Enforced; Equitable Tolling Rejected for Counsel Misinterpretation in Harris v. Hutchinson

Date: Apr 5, 2000
AEDPA One-Year Limitation Strictly Enforced; Equitable Tolling Rejected for Counsel Misinterpretation in Harris v. Hutchinson Introduction In the landmark case Percy Stanley Harris v. Ronald...
Establishing Reasonable Suspicion in Continued Detention at Traffic Checkpoints: Analysis of United States v. Brugal

Establishing Reasonable Suspicion in Continued Detention at Traffic Checkpoints: Analysis of United States v. Brugal

Date: Apr 5, 2000
Establishing Reasonable Suspicion in Continued Detention at Traffic Checkpoints: Analysis of United States v. Brugal Introduction The landmark case United States of America v. Alexis A. Brugal; Henry...
Reaffirming Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity in Judicial Functions: Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside

Reaffirming Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity in Judicial Functions: Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside

Date: Apr 4, 2000
Reaffirming Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity in Judicial Functions: Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside Introduction The case of Mousa I. Dababnah, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristen Keller-Burnside, Chief...
Affirming the Inapplicability of "Pay When Paid" Clauses for Surety Bonds in Moore Brothers Co. v. Brown Root, Inc.

Affirming the Inapplicability of "Pay When Paid" Clauses for Surety Bonds in Moore Brothers Co. v. Brown Root, Inc.

Date: Mar 31, 2000
Affirming the Inapplicability of "Pay When Paid" Clauses for Surety Bonds in Moore Brothers Co. v. Brown Root, Inc. Introduction The case of Moore Brothers Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brown Root,...
Affirmation of Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Compel Discovery in Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.

Affirmation of Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Compel Discovery in Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co.

Date: Mar 31, 2000
Affirmation of Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion to Compel Discovery in Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co. Introduction In the case of Patricia Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde...
AEDPA and Procedural Default: Analysis of Burket v. Angelone

AEDPA and Procedural Default: Analysis of Burket v. Angelone

Date: Mar 28, 2000
AEDPA and Procedural Default: Analysis of Burket v. Angelone Introduction Burket v. Angelone (208 F.3d 172) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit...
Strict Adherence to AEDPA’s Statute of Limitations on Motions to Amend under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States v. Pittman

Strict Adherence to AEDPA’s Statute of Limitations on Motions to Amend under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States v. Pittman

Date: Mar 25, 2000
Strict Adherence to AEDPA’s Statute of Limitations on Motions to Amend under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States v. Pittman Introduction In the landmark case of United States...
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