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

6th Circuit Case Commentaries

No §107 Declaratory Relief After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Cabins §113(g)(2) to “Initial” §107 Actions and Reaffirms §107/§113(f) Mutual Exclusivity

No §107 Declaratory Relief After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Cabins §113(g)(2) to “Initial” §107 Actions and Reaffirms §107/§113(f) Mutual Exclusivity

Date: May 13, 2025
No §107 Declaratory Relief After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Cabins §113(g)(2) to “Initial” §107 Actions and Reaffirms §107/§113(f) Mutual Exclusivity Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP...
No § 107 Declaratory Judgment After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Limits CERCLA § 113(g)(2) to Initial Cost-Recovery Actions

No § 107 Declaratory Judgment After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Limits CERCLA § 113(g)(2) to Initial Cost-Recovery Actions

Date: May 13, 2025
No § 107 Declaratory Judgment After a Prior Liability Judgment: Sixth Circuit Limits CERCLA § 113(g)(2) to Initial Cost-Recovery Actions Introduction In Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. NCR...
Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Strict Rule 29 Preservation and Upholds Within-Guidelines Life Sentence in Fatal Fentanyl Trafficking

Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Strict Rule 29 Preservation and Upholds Within-Guidelines Life Sentence in Fatal Fentanyl Trafficking

Date: May 13, 2025
Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Strict Rule 29 Preservation and Upholds Within-Guidelines Life Sentence in Fatal Fentanyl Trafficking Case: United States v. Terrance Lamont Hines, No. 24-5443 (6th Cir. May...
No Zipes Shield for States: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) State Intervenors May Be Liable for § 1988 Fees; Across-the-Board Lodestar Cuts Require Specific Reasons

No Zipes Shield for States: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) State Intervenors May Be Liable for § 1988 Fees; Across-the-Board Lodestar Cuts Require Specific Reasons

Date: May 13, 2025
No Zipes Shield for States: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) State Intervenors May Be Liable for § 1988 Fees; Across-the-Board Lodestar Cuts Require Specific Reasons Introduction In Donald Freed v....
No Zipes Shield for State Intervenors: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) Subjects States to § 1988 Fee Liability as Parties

No Zipes Shield for State Intervenors: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) Subjects States to § 1988 Fee Liability as Parties

Date: May 13, 2025
No Zipes Shield for State Intervenors: Sixth Circuit Holds § 2403(b) Subjects States to § 1988 Fee Liability as Parties Introduction This published Sixth Circuit opinion resolves a recurring but...
State Intervenors Who Defend a Statute’s Constitutionality Are Fully Liable for § 1988 Attorney’s Fees Under § 2403(b)—No Zipes “Frivolousness” Shield; Lodestar Reductions Require Specific, Case‑Tethered Explanations

State Intervenors Who Defend a Statute’s Constitutionality Are Fully Liable for § 1988 Attorney’s Fees Under § 2403(b)—No Zipes “Frivolousness” Shield; Lodestar Reductions Require Specific, Case‑Tethered Explanations

Date: May 13, 2025
State Intervenors Who Defend a Statute’s Constitutionality Are Fully Liable for § 1988 Attorney’s Fees Under § 2403(b)—No Zipes “Frivolousness” Shield; Lodestar Reductions Require Specific,...
Age-Based Recidivism Alone Does Not Compel a Downward Variance; Courts May Decline the Statutory Minimum Where It Fails to Punish Separate Witness-Tampering Conduct

Age-Based Recidivism Alone Does Not Compel a Downward Variance; Courts May Decline the Statutory Minimum Where It Fails to Punish Separate Witness-Tampering Conduct

Date: May 13, 2025
Age-Based Recidivism Alone Does Not Compel a Downward Variance; Courts May Decline the Statutory Minimum Where It Fails to Punish Separate Witness-Tampering Conduct Case: United States v. Kendall...
No Backpay for Reemployment-List Violations Under Tennessee Tenure Act; Superintendent’s Final Authority Supports § 1983 Monell Liability and Carey Nominal Damages: Commentary on Williams v. Shelby County Board of Education (6th Cir. 2025)

No Backpay for Reemployment-List Violations Under Tennessee Tenure Act; Superintendent’s Final Authority Supports § 1983 Monell Liability and Carey Nominal Damages: Commentary on Williams v. Shelby County Board of Education (6th Cir. 2025)

Date: May 13, 2025
No Backpay for Reemployment-List Violations Under Tennessee Tenure Act; Superintendent’s Final Authority Supports § 1983 Monell Liability and Carey Nominal Damages Case: Sonya P. Williams v. Shelby...
No Binding Effect for “Informational Only” Plats: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Operator Discretion and “Confer” vs. “Consent” in Ohio Surface Use Agreements

No Binding Effect for “Informational Only” Plats: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Operator Discretion and “Confer” vs. “Consent” in Ohio Surface Use Agreements

Date: May 13, 2025
No Binding Effect for “Informational Only” Plats: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Operator Discretion and “Confer” vs. “Consent” in Ohio Surface Use Agreements Case: Pamela K. Pirl; Shannon R. Pirl v. Rice...
Administrative Closures Cannot Insulate Preliminary Injunctions from Review: Sixth Circuit Adopts a Practical-Effect/Pending-Motion Test and Orders Tailoring of Tennessee’s Sex‑Offender Registry Injunction After Does #1‑9

Administrative Closures Cannot Insulate Preliminary Injunctions from Review: Sixth Circuit Adopts a Practical-Effect/Pending-Motion Test and Orders Tailoring of Tennessee’s Sex‑Offender Registry Injunction After Does #1‑9

Date: May 13, 2025
Administrative Closures Cannot Insulate Preliminary Injunctions from Review: Sixth Circuit Adopts a Practical-Effect/Pending-Motion Test and Orders Tailoring of Tennessee’s Sex‑Offender Registry...
Sixth Circuit (Ohio law): Insurer May Settle and Recoup Under a Fronting Policy Without Proving Reasonableness or Obtaining the Insured’s Consent

Sixth Circuit (Ohio law): Insurer May Settle and Recoup Under a Fronting Policy Without Proving Reasonableness or Obtaining the Insured’s Consent

Date: May 10, 2025
Sixth Circuit (Ohio law): Insurer May Settle and Recoup Under a Fronting Policy Without Proving Reasonableness or Obtaining the Insured’s Consent Case: Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. v. Evenflo Company,...
Sixth Circuit Bars Sentencing Courts from Relying on Uncorroborated Multi‑Layer Police‑Report Hearsay to Impose the §2K2.1(b)(4)(A) Stolen‑Firearm Enhancement

Sixth Circuit Bars Sentencing Courts from Relying on Uncorroborated Multi‑Layer Police‑Report Hearsay to Impose the §2K2.1(b)(4)(A) Stolen‑Firearm Enhancement

Date: May 10, 2025
Sixth Circuit Bars Sentencing Courts from Relying on Uncorroborated Multi‑Layer Police‑Report Hearsay to Impose the §2K2.1(b)(4)(A) Stolen‑Firearm Enhancement Introduction In United States v. Curtis...
No Clairvoyance Required in Plea Advice: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Counsel’s Duties and AEDPA Deference in Plea-Bargaining Ineffectiveness Claims

No Clairvoyance Required in Plea Advice: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Counsel’s Duties and AEDPA Deference in Plea-Bargaining Ineffectiveness Claims

Date: May 9, 2025
No Clairvoyance Required in Plea Advice: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Counsel’s Duties and AEDPA Deference in Plea-Bargaining Ineffectiveness Claims Introduction In an amended opinion not recommended for...
Capacity, Not Claim Facts: Sixth Circuit Holds ERISA § 502(a)(3) Cannot Block a State’s Saved Insurance Enforcement When the Regulator Proceeds Against an Insurer

Capacity, Not Claim Facts: Sixth Circuit Holds ERISA § 502(a)(3) Cannot Block a State’s Saved Insurance Enforcement When the Regulator Proceeds Against an Insurer

Date: May 9, 2025
Capacity, Not Claim Facts: Sixth Circuit Holds ERISA § 502(a)(3) Cannot Block a State’s Saved Insurance Enforcement When the Regulator Proceeds Against an Insurer Case: BlueCross BlueShield of...
No Automatic Remand for Post-Williams Dangerousness Challenges under § 922(g)(1): Sixth Circuit Affirms As-Applied Disarmament Based on Uncontested Record

No Automatic Remand for Post-Williams Dangerousness Challenges under § 922(g)(1): Sixth Circuit Affirms As-Applied Disarmament Based on Uncontested Record

Date: May 9, 2025
No Automatic Remand for Post-Williams Dangerousness Challenges under § 922(g)(1): Sixth Circuit Affirms As-Applied Disarmament Based on Uncontested Record Court: United States Court of Appeals for...
Sixth Circuit Endorses Provider-Specific Sex-Offender “Treatment-as-Monitoring,” Biannual Polygraphs, and Cost Sharing Without a Second Hearing under § 3583: United States v. Pate

Sixth Circuit Endorses Provider-Specific Sex-Offender “Treatment-as-Monitoring,” Biannual Polygraphs, and Cost Sharing Without a Second Hearing under § 3583: United States v. Pate

Date: May 9, 2025
Sixth Circuit Endorses Provider-Specific Sex-Offender “Treatment-as-Monitoring,” Biannual Polygraphs, and Cost Sharing Without a Second Hearing under § 3583: United States v. Pate Introduction In...
Officer Observation and Contemporaneous Statements Can Establish Probable Cause Despite Incomplete Video: Sixth Circuit Rejects Pretext-as-Credibility Challenge in United States v. Vann

Officer Observation and Contemporaneous Statements Can Establish Probable Cause Despite Incomplete Video: Sixth Circuit Rejects Pretext-as-Credibility Challenge in United States v. Vann

Date: May 9, 2025
Officer Observation and Contemporaneous Statements Can Establish Probable Cause Despite Incomplete Video: Sixth Circuit Rejects Pretext-as-Credibility Challenge in United States v. Vann Introduction...
Sixth Circuit Endorses “Possible Guilt of Others” Instruction in Joint-Possession Trials and Reaffirms Constructive-Possession Factors for Drugs and Guns Found in Shared Vehicles

Sixth Circuit Endorses “Possible Guilt of Others” Instruction in Joint-Possession Trials and Reaffirms Constructive-Possession Factors for Drugs and Guns Found in Shared Vehicles

Date: May 9, 2025
Sixth Circuit Endorses “Possible Guilt of Others” Instruction in Joint-Possession Trials and Reaffirms Constructive-Possession Factors for Drugs and Guns Found in Shared Vehicles Introduction In...
No Single “Standard Rate” Under Hayes: Sixth Circuit Endorses Flexible Benchmarks (Including EAJA Cap and Counsel’s Stated Rate) for § 406(b) Fee Review

No Single “Standard Rate” Under Hayes: Sixth Circuit Endorses Flexible Benchmarks (Including EAJA Cap and Counsel’s Stated Rate) for § 406(b) Fee Review

Date: May 8, 2025
No Single “Standard Rate” Under Hayes: Sixth Circuit Endorses Flexible Benchmarks (Including EAJA Cap and Counsel’s Stated Rate) for § 406(b) Fee Review Introduction In Debra Tucker v. Commissioner...
No Nexus Requirement Under AEDPA: Sixth Circuit En Banc Clarifies How State Courts May Weigh Mitigation in Capital Cases

No Nexus Requirement Under AEDPA: Sixth Circuit En Banc Clarifies How State Courts May Weigh Mitigation in Capital Cases

Date: May 8, 2025
No Nexus Requirement Under AEDPA: Sixth Circuit En Banc Clarifies How State Courts May Weigh Mitigation in Capital Cases Introduction In Hodge v. Plappert, No. 17-6032 (6th Cir. May 7, 2025) (en...
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