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

Reversing Time-Barred Second Asbestos Claim: Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation

Reversing Time-Barred Second Asbestos Claim: Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation

Date: May 16, 2000
Reversing Time-Barred Second Asbestos Claim: Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation Introduction Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of California...
Affirmation of In-House Counsel’s Right to Recover Attorney Fees Under Civil Code §1717: PLCM Group v. Drexler

Affirmation of In-House Counsel’s Right to Recover Attorney Fees Under Civil Code §1717: PLCM Group v. Drexler

Date: May 9, 2000
Affirmation of In-House Counsel’s Right to Recover Attorney Fees Under Civil Code §1717: PLCM Group v. Drexler Introduction The case of PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) adjudicated by the Supreme...
People v. Jenkins: Upholding Capital Murder Conviction and Procedural Safeguards in High-Stakes Trials

People v. Jenkins: Upholding Capital Murder Conviction and Procedural Safeguards in High-Stakes Trials

Date: May 5, 2000
People v. Jenkins: Upholding Capital Murder Conviction and Procedural Safeguards in High-Stakes Trials Introduction In the landmark case of People v. Daniel Steven Jenkins (22 Cal.4th 900, 2000), the...
Recognition of Psychological Harm in Aggravated Kidnapping: People v. Nguyen Sets New Precedent

Recognition of Psychological Harm in Aggravated Kidnapping: People v. Nguyen Sets New Precedent

Date: May 5, 2000
Recognition of Psychological Harm in Aggravated Kidnapping: People v. Nguyen Sets New Precedent Introduction People v. Nguyen (22 Cal.4th 872, 2000) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of...
Terry Douglas Bemore v. The People: Establishing Precedent on Torture-Murder and Effective Representation in Capital Cases

Terry Douglas Bemore v. The People: Establishing Precedent on Torture-Murder and Effective Representation in Capital Cases

Date: Apr 21, 2000
Terry Douglas Bemore v. The People: Establishing Precedent on Torture-Murder and Effective Representation in Capital Cases Introduction Terry Douglas Bemore v. The People (22 Cal.4th 809) is a...
Arbitral Finality and Interpretation of Attorney Fees Clauses: Insights from Moshonov v. Walsh

Arbitral Finality and Interpretation of Attorney Fees Clauses: Insights from Moshonov v. Walsh

Date: Apr 18, 2000
Arbitral Finality and Interpretation of Attorney Fees Clauses: Insights from Moshonov v. Walsh Introduction The case of Robin Moshonov v. John D. Walsh et al., decided by the Supreme Court of...
Martinez v. The People: Clarifying the State and Federal Speedy Trial Rights in California

Martinez v. The People: Clarifying the State and Federal Speedy Trial Rights in California

Date: Apr 7, 2000
Martinez v. The People: Clarifying the State and Federal Speedy Trial Rights in California Introduction In Martinez v. The People (22 Cal.4th 750, 2000), the Supreme Court of California addressed...
Establishment of Strict Standards for Jury Instructions in Capital Cases: People v. Waidla

Establishment of Strict Standards for Jury Instructions in Capital Cases: People v. Waidla

Date: Apr 7, 2000
Establishment of Strict Standards for Jury Instructions in Capital Cases: People v. Waidla Introduction People v. Tauno Waidla (22 Cal.4th 690, 2000) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of...
Factual Impossibility Does Not Preclude Conviction Under Prop 187's Section 113

Factual Impossibility Does Not Preclude Conviction Under Prop 187's Section 113

Date: Apr 4, 2000
Factual Impossibility Does Not Preclude Conviction Under Prop 187's Section 113 Introduction In the landmark case The People v. Jose Rizo et al., decided by the Supreme Court of California on April...
Full Application of Firearm Use Enhancements in Indeterminate Sentencing: THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK P. FELIX

Full Application of Firearm Use Enhancements in Indeterminate Sentencing: THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK P. FELIX

Date: Mar 31, 2000
Full Application of Firearm Use Enhancements in Indeterminate Sentencing: THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK P. FELIX Introduction The landmark case of THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK P. FELIX (22 Cal.4th 651) addressed...
Compulsory Travel Time as Compensable Hours: Morillion v. Royal Packing Company

Compulsory Travel Time as Compensable Hours: Morillion v. Royal Packing Company

Date: Mar 28, 2000
Compulsory Travel Time as Compensable Hours: Morillion v. Royal Packing Company Introduction Morillion v. Royal Packing Company is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of California that...
Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction and Procedural Standards: People v. Sakarias

Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction and Procedural Standards: People v. Sakarias

Date: Mar 28, 2000
Affirmation of Felony-Murder Conviction and Procedural Standards: People v. Sakarias Introduction People v. Peter Sakarias (22 Cal.4th 596, 2000) is a significant case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Paz v. State of California: Negligent Undertaking and Duty of Care in Public Safety Projects

Paz v. State of California: Negligent Undertaking and Duty of Care in Public Safety Projects

Date: Mar 21, 2000
Paz v. State of California: Negligent Undertaking and Duty of Care in Public Safety Projects Introduction The case of Francisco Paz vs. State of California et al. (22 Cal.4th 550) adjudicated by the...
People v. Hernandez: Reinforcing the Integrity of Insanity Pleas under Penal Code §1385(a)

People v. Hernandez: Reinforcing the Integrity of Insanity Pleas under Penal Code §1385(a)

Date: Mar 17, 2000
People v. Hernandez: Reinforcing the Integrity of Insanity Pleas under Penal Code §1385(a) Introduction People v. Hernandez (22 Cal.4th 512, 2000) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of...
Balancing Adoption and Parental Relationships in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings: Insights from In Re Jasmine D.

Balancing Adoption and Parental Relationships in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings: Insights from In Re Jasmine D.

Date: Mar 15, 2000
Balancing Adoption and Parental Relationships in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings: Insights from In Re Jasmine D. Introduction In Re Jasmine D. is a pivotal case adjudicated by the Court of Appeal of...
Liability of Municipal Entities under Government Code §815.6: An Analysis of Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles

Liability of Municipal Entities under Government Code §815.6: An Analysis of Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles

Date: Mar 10, 2000
Liability of Municipal Entities under Government Code §815.6: An Analysis of Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles Introduction Paul Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (22 Cal.4th 490) is a pivotal case...
Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.: Reinforcing Standards for New Trial Orders and Punitive Damages Evaluation

Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.: Reinforcing Standards for New Trial Orders and Punitive Damages Evaluation

Date: Mar 7, 2000
Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.: Reinforcing Standards for New Trial Orders and Punitive Damages Evaluation Introduction Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of...
Rule 412(b) and Section 654: Establishing Clear Boundaries on Double Punishment in THE PEOPLE v. GEORGE R. HESTER

Rule 412(b) and Section 654: Establishing Clear Boundaries on Double Punishment in THE PEOPLE v. GEORGE R. HESTER

Date: Feb 18, 2000
Rule 412(b) and Section 654: Establishing Clear Boundaries on Double Punishment in The People v. George R. Hester Introduction The People v. George R. Hester, decided by the Supreme Court of...
Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections: California Supreme Court’s Ruling in People v. Hatch

Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections: California Supreme Court’s Ruling in People v. Hatch

Date: Feb 1, 2000
Clarifying Double Jeopardy Protections: California Supreme Court’s Ruling in People v. Hatch Introduction People v. Daniel William Hatch is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of California that...
Reinforcing Trial Court Discretion on Evidence and Procedures in Death Penalty Cases: PEOPLE v. PHILLIPS

Reinforcing Trial Court Discretion on Evidence and Procedures in Death Penalty Cases: PEOPLE v. PHILLIPS

Date: Jan 25, 2000
Reinforcing Trial Court Discretion on Evidence and Procedures in Death Penalty Cases: People v. Richard Louis Arnold Phillips Introduction People v. Richard Louis Arnold Phillips (22 Cal.4th 226) is...
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