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

California Case Commentaries

Clarifying 'Distinctively Marked' in Pursuits: Hudson v. People (38 Cal.4th 1002) Sets New Precedent

Clarifying 'Distinctively Marked' in Pursuits: Hudson v. People (38 Cal.4th 1002) Sets New Precedent

Date: Jun 20, 2006
Clarifying 'Distinctively Marked' in Pursuits: Hudson v. People (38 Cal.4th 1002) Sets New Precedent Introduction In the landmark case of People v. Hudson, the Supreme Court of California addressed...
Requirement for Reciprocal Discovery of Rebuttal Evidence in Capital Trials Established in PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

Requirement for Reciprocal Discovery of Rebuttal Evidence in Capital Trials Established in PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

Date: Jun 13, 2006
Requirement for Reciprocal Discovery of Rebuttal Evidence in Capital Trials Established in PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ Introduction PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of California...
Affirmation of Restrictions on Optometric Business Relationships Under the Knox-Keene Act

Affirmation of Restrictions on Optometric Business Relationships Under the Knox-Keene Act

Date: Jun 13, 2006
Affirmation of Restrictions on Optometric Business Relationships Under the Knox-Keene Act Introduction In the landmark case The People, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. Cole et al., Defendants...
Clarifying Employer Liability for Third-Party Sexual Harassment under FEHA

Clarifying Employer Liability for Third-Party Sexual Harassment under FEHA

Date: Jun 9, 2006
Clarifying Employer Liability for Third-Party Sexual Harassment under FEHA Introduction Helga Carter v. California Department of Veterans Affairs is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Mandatory Release on Own Recognizance for In-Custody Defendants: Analysis of People v. Standish

Mandatory Release on Own Recognizance for In-Custody Defendants: Analysis of People v. Standish

Date: Jun 6, 2006
Mandatory Release on Own Recognizance for In-Custody Defendants: Analysis of People v. Standish Introduction In the landmark case of People v. Jared Jacob Standish (38 Cal.4th 858, 2006), the Supreme...
Vicarious Disqualification of Government Law Offices: Insights from City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.

Vicarious Disqualification of Government Law Offices: Insights from City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.

Date: Jun 6, 2006
Vicarious Disqualification of Government Law Offices: Insights from City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. Introduction The landmark case City and County of San Francisco et al. v....
Exigent Circumstances Justifying Warrantless Entry for DUI Arrest in California

Exigent Circumstances Justifying Warrantless Entry for DUI Arrest in California

Date: Jun 2, 2006
Exigent Circumstances Justifying Warrantless Entry for DUI Arrest in California Introduction People v. Daniel Lyon Thompson (38 Cal.4th 811, 2006) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of...
The People v. McGee: Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Enhancements Post-Apprendi

The People v. McGee: Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Enhancements Post-Apprendi

Date: May 23, 2006
The People v. McGee: Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Enhancements Post-Apprendi Introduction In The People v. James Corey McGee (38 Cal.4th 682, 2006), the Supreme Court of California grappled with...
Requiring Knowledge of Illegal Characteristics in Weapon Possession Under California Penal Code §12020(a)(1)

Requiring Knowledge of Illegal Characteristics in Weapon Possession Under California Penal Code §12020(a)(1)

Date: May 16, 2006
Requiring Knowledge of Illegal Characteristics in Weapon Possession Under California Penal Code §12020(a)(1) Introduction In the landmark case of The People v. Sean King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (2006), the...
Clear-Cut For-Cause Juror Excusals Based Solely on Written Questionnaires: The People v. Johnny Avila, Jr. (2006)

Clear-Cut For-Cause Juror Excusals Based Solely on Written Questionnaires: The People v. Johnny Avila, Jr. (2006)

Date: May 16, 2006
Clear-Cut For-Cause Juror Excusals Based Solely on Written Questionnaires: The People v. Johnny Avila, Jr. (2006) Introduction The case of The People v. Johnny Avila, Jr., decided in 2006 by the...
Affirmation of Death Sentence: Unrelated Evidence Remains Admissible Despite Initial Confession Exclusion

Affirmation of Death Sentence: Unrelated Evidence Remains Admissible Despite Initial Confession Exclusion

Date: May 12, 2006
Affirmation of Death Sentence: Unrelated Evidence Remains Admissible Despite Initial Confession Exclusion Introduction In the case of The People v. Richard Delmer Boyer (38 Cal.4th 412, 2006), the...
Establishing Judicial Impartiality and the Torture Murder Special Circumstance: People v. Chatman

Establishing Judicial Impartiality and the Torture Murder Special Circumstance: People v. Chatman

Date: May 9, 2006
Establishing Judicial Impartiality and the Torture Murder Special Circumstance: People v. Chatman Introduction People v. Erik Sanford Chatman (38 Cal.4th 344) is a landmark decision by the Supreme...
Limits on Defendant’s Right to be Present in Non-Critical Proceedings

Limits on Defendant’s Right to be Present in Non-Critical Proceedings

Date: Apr 25, 2006
Limits on Defendant’s Right to be Present in Non-Critical Proceedings Introduction The case of THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLIFTON PERRY, Defendant and Appellant (38 Cal.4th 302)...
Harassment Claims in Creative Workspaces: Limitations Under FEHA

Harassment Claims in Creative Workspaces: Limitations Under FEHA

Date: Apr 21, 2006
Harassment Claims in Creative Workspaces: Limitations Under FEHA Introduction In the landmark case of Amaani Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions et al. (38 Cal.4th 264, 2006), the Supreme...
Affirmation of Capital Murder Conviction in People v. Huggins: Implications for Competency and Procedural Due Process

Affirmation of Capital Murder Conviction in People v. Huggins: Implications for Competency and Procedural Due Process

Date: Apr 11, 2006
Affirmation of Capital Murder Conviction in People v. Huggins: Implications for Competency and Procedural Due Process Introduction The case of The People v. Michael James Huggins (38 Cal.4th 175,...
Comprehensive Commentary on In re S.C.: Upholding Standards in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings

Comprehensive Commentary on In re S.C.: Upholding Standards in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings

Date: Apr 8, 2006
Comprehensive Commentary on In re S.C.: Upholding Standards in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings 1. Introduction In re S.C. is a pivotal appellate decision from the Court of Appeal of California, Third...
Immunity of Public Entities in Supervised School Sports: Avila v. Citrus Community College District

Immunity of Public Entities in Supervised School Sports: Avila v. Citrus Community College District

Date: Apr 7, 2006
Immunity of Public Entities in Supervised School Sports: Avila v. Citrus Community College District Introduction Jose Luis Avila v. Citrus Community College District is a pivotal case adjudicated by...
Establishing Precedents in Double Jeopardy and Penal Proceedings: People v. Robert Jurado, Jr.

Establishing Precedents in Double Jeopardy and Penal Proceedings: People v. Robert Jurado, Jr.

Date: Apr 7, 2006
Establishing Precedents in Double Jeopardy and Penal Proceedings: People v. Robert Jurado, Jr. Introduction In the landmark case of The People v. Robert Jurado, Jr., adjudicated by the Supreme Court...
Transferred Intent Doctrine Upheld in Gang-Related Murder: The People v. Shabazz

Transferred Intent Doctrine Upheld in Gang-Related Murder: The People v. Shabazz

Date: Mar 28, 2006
Transferred Intent Doctrine Upheld in Gang-Related Murder: The People v. Shabazz Introduction The case of The People v. Samuel Sharad Shabazz (38 Cal.4th 55, 2006) presents a significant ruling by...
Nondiscrimination Requirements in Public Subsidies: The California Supreme Court’s Decision in EUGENE EVANS et al. v. CITY OF BERKELEY et al.

Nondiscrimination Requirements in Public Subsidies: The California Supreme Court’s Decision in EUGENE EVANS et al. v. CITY OF BERKELEY et al.

Date: Mar 10, 2006
Nondiscrimination Requirements in Public Subsidies: The California Supreme Court’s Decision in EUGENE EVANS et al. v. CITY OF BERKELEY et al. Introduction The case Eugene Evans et al. v. City of...
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