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

5th Circuit Case Commentaries

Strict Deference Under AEDPA in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: NEAL v. STATE

Strict Deference Under AEDPA in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: NEAL v. STATE

Date: Mar 16, 2002
Strict Deference Under AEDPA in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: NEAL v. STATE Introduction The case of Howard Monteville NEAL v. Steve W. PUCKETT addresses the complex interplay between...
PRICE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.: Affirmation of Summary Judgment in Racial Discrimination Case

PRICE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.: Affirmation of Summary Judgment in Racial Discrimination Case

Date: Mar 13, 2002
Disclaimer: This commentary is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified attorney. PRICE v. FEDERAL...
Clarifying Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under AEDPA: The Alonzo Evans Case

Clarifying Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under AEDPA: The Alonzo Evans Case

Date: Mar 9, 2002
Clarifying Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under AEDPA: The Alonzo Evans Case Introduction The case of Alonzo Evans v. Janie Cockrell serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the boundaries...
Strict Adherence to Appellate Mandates: Upholding the Mandate Rule and Law of the Case in Recalculating Sanctions

Strict Adherence to Appellate Mandates: Upholding the Mandate Rule and Law of the Case in Recalculating Sanctions

Date: Mar 7, 2002
Strict Adherence to Appellate Mandates: Upholding the Mandate Rule and Law of the Case in Recalculating Sanctions Introduction The case of Sandy G. Tollett v. City of Kemah, adjudicated by the United...
Affirmation of Denial of Habeas Relief: Standards for Voluntariness of Guilty Pleas and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in the Fifth Circuit

Affirmation of Denial of Habeas Relief: Standards for Voluntariness of Guilty Pleas and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in the Fifth Circuit

Date: Feb 26, 2002
Affirmation of Denial of Habeas Relief: Standards for Voluntariness of Guilty Pleas and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in the Fifth Circuit Introduction Ronald Nelson Daniel, the...
Inadmissible Use of Relevant Conduct for Criminal History Departures in Federal Sentencing

Inadmissible Use of Relevant Conduct for Criminal History Departures in Federal Sentencing

Date: Feb 26, 2002
Inadmissible Use of Relevant Conduct for Criminal History Departures in Federal Sentencing Introduction The case of United States of America v. Sadar D. Cade (279 F.3d 265, 5th Cir. 2002) presents a...
Establishing the Limits of Disparate Impact Claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Stout v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Establishing the Limits of Disparate Impact Claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Stout v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Date: Feb 20, 2002
Establishing the Limits of Disparate Impact Claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Stout v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. Introduction The case of Wilma Nicole Stout v. Baxter Healthcare...
Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories: Establishing Strict Standing Requirements in Class Actions

Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories: Establishing Strict Standing Requirements in Class Actions

Date: Feb 16, 2002
Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories: Establishing Strict Standing Requirements in Class Actions Introduction In the landmark case Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, decided on February 15, 2002, by...
Arbitration Scope Expanded to Inseparable Nonsignatories: Commentary on Ross Hill v. GE Capital Corp.

Arbitration Scope Expanded to Inseparable Nonsignatories: Commentary on Ross Hill v. GE Capital Corp.

Date: Feb 12, 2002
Arbitration Scope Expanded to Inseparable Nonsignatories: Commentary on Ross Hill v. GE Capital Corp. Introduction In the landmark case Ross Hill; Paul Grimes; Canatxx Energy Ventures, Inc.,...
Affirmation of Knowledge Requirement for Innocent Spouse Relief under IRC §6015 in Cheshire v. Commissioner

Affirmation of Knowledge Requirement for Innocent Spouse Relief under IRC §6015 in Cheshire v. Commissioner

Date: Feb 9, 2002
Affirmation of Knowledge Requirement for Innocent Spouse Relief under IRC §6015 in Cheshire v. Commissioner Introduction Cheshire v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002), is a pivotal case...
Stirman v. Exxon Corporation: Implications for Multi-State Class Certifications under FRCP 23

Stirman v. Exxon Corporation: Implications for Multi-State Class Certifications under FRCP 23

Date: Feb 2, 2002
Stirman v. Exxon Corporation: Implications for Multi-State Class Certifications under FRCP 23 1. Introduction The case of Stirman and Hunter v. Exxon Corporation addresses significant issues related...
Reinstatement and Retaliation under FMLA: Insights from Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System

Reinstatement and Retaliation under FMLA: Insights from Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System

Date: Jan 31, 2002
Reinstatement and Retaliation under FMLA: Insights from Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System Introduction The case Kathy Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC, adjudicated by the United States Court of...
Affirmation of Disability Under ERISA and Fair Policy Interpretation: Lain v. Unum Life Insurance Co.

Affirmation of Disability Under ERISA and Fair Policy Interpretation: Lain v. Unum Life Insurance Co.

Date: Jan 30, 2002
Affirmation of Disability Under ERISA and Fair Policy Interpretation: Lain v. Unum Life Insurance Co. Introduction The case of Ellen Lain v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (279 F.3d 337)...
Hess v. Cockrell: Restricting Rule 60(b)(6) Relief in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Hess v. Cockrell: Restricting Rule 60(b)(6) Relief in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Jan 25, 2002
Hess v. Cockrell: Restricting Rule 60(b)(6) Relief in Habeas Corpus Petitions Introduction In Jeffrey Hess v. Janie Cockrell, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed...
Non-Signatory Minors Not Bound by Parental Arbitration Agreements: Fifth Circuit's Decision in Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaskamp

Non-Signatory Minors Not Bound by Parental Arbitration Agreements: Fifth Circuit's Decision in Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaskamp

Date: Jan 25, 2002
Non-Signatory Minors Not Bound by Parental Arbitration Agreements: Fifth Circuit's Decision in Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaskamp Introduction The case of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Fleetwood...
Obligation of Excess Insurers to Defend Under Texas Law: Schneider National Transport v. Ford Motor Company

Obligation of Excess Insurers to Defend Under Texas Law: Schneider National Transport v. Ford Motor Company

Date: Jan 19, 2002
Obligation of Excess Insurers to Defend Under Texas Law: Schneider National Transport v. Ford Motor Company Introduction Schneider National Transport, Etc., Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company; et al.,...
Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and 15 U.S.C. §1117(a): Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp.

Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and 15 U.S.C. §1117(a): Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp.

Date: Jan 18, 2002
Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and 15 U.S.C. §1117(a): Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp. Commentary Introduction Procter & Gamble Company ("PG") filed a lawsuit against Amway Corporation and...
Implications of Comparative Negligence and Maintenance and Cure in Maritime Law: Boudreaux v. United States

Implications of Comparative Negligence and Maintenance and Cure in Maritime Law: Boudreaux v. United States

Date: Jan 16, 2002
Implications of Comparative Negligence and Maintenance and Cure in Maritime Law: Boudreaux v. United States Introduction Carroll P. Boudreaux, a seasoned merchant seaman with 25 years of experience,...
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Limits on Rule 41(a)(2) Dismissals: Ensuring Protection Against Legal Prejudice

Fifth Circuit Clarifies Limits on Rule 41(a)(2) Dismissals: Ensuring Protection Against Legal Prejudice

Date: Jan 15, 2002
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Limits on Rule 41(a)(2) Dismissals: Ensuring Protection Against Legal Prejudice Introduction In the appellate case James E. Elbaor, MD PA, Indi v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., the...
Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish: Examining Qualified Immunity and Constraints on Sovereign Immunity for Local Law Enforcement under 42 U.S.C. §1983

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish: Examining Qualified Immunity and Constraints on Sovereign Immunity for Local Law Enforcement under 42 U.S.C. §1983

Date: Jan 11, 2002
Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish: Examining Qualified Immunity and Constraints on Sovereign Immunity for Local Law Enforcement under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Introduction This comprehensive commentary analyzes the...
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