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

Michigan Case Commentaries

PEOPLE v. TRAKHTENBERG: Michigan Supreme Court Limits Collateral Estoppel in Ineffective Assistance Claims, Establishing New Standards for Defense Counsel Performance

PEOPLE v. TRAKHTENBERG: Michigan Supreme Court Limits Collateral Estoppel in Ineffective Assistance Claims, Establishing New Standards for Defense Counsel Performance

Date: Dec 22, 2012
PEOPLE v. TRAKHTENBERG: Michigan Supreme Court Limits Collateral Estoppel in Ineffective Assistance Claims, Establishing New Standards for Defense Counsel Performance Introduction The People of the...
Voluntary Acquisition of Mortgages and Foreclosure Recordation: Insights from Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Voluntary Acquisition of Mortgages and Foreclosure Recordation: Insights from Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Date: Dec 22, 2012
Voluntary Acquisition of Mortgages and Foreclosure Recordation: Insights from Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank Introduction The case of Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (493 Mich. 98) adjudicated by the...
Establishing the Boundaries of Lesser Included Offenses: Insights from People v. Heft

Establishing the Boundaries of Lesser Included Offenses: Insights from People v. Heft

Date: Dec 21, 2012
Establishing the Boundaries of Lesser Included Offenses: Insights from People v. Heft Introduction People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (Court of Appeals of Michigan, 2012), presents a pivotal analysis...
McCAHAN v. BRENNAN: Affirming Strict Compliance with Statutory Notice Provisions in Claims Against the State

McCAHAN v. BRENNAN: Affirming Strict Compliance with Statutory Notice Provisions in Claims Against the State

Date: Aug 21, 2012
McCAHAN v. BRENNAN: Affirming Strict Compliance with Statutory Notice Provisions in Claims Against the State Introduction In the landmark case of McCAHAN v. BRENNAN, decided on August 20, 2012, the...
Duty of Appliance Installers in Addressing Third-Party Hazards: Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Duty of Appliance Installers in Addressing Third-Party Hazards: Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Date: Aug 17, 2012
Duty of Appliance Installers in Addressing Third-Party Hazards: Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Introduction Hill v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 492 Mich. 651 (2012), is a landmark case that clarifies the...
Admissibility of False Confessions: Insights from PEOPLE v. KOWALSKI

Admissibility of False Confessions: Insights from PEOPLE v. KOWALSKI

Date: Jul 31, 2012
Admissibility of False Confessions: Insights from PEOPLE v. KOWALSKI Introduction PEOPLE v. KOWALSKI (2012) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan that delves into the complexities...
Exclusion of Replacement Services in Third-Party Tort Actions: Insights from Johnson v. Recca

Exclusion of Replacement Services in Third-Party Tort Actions: Insights from Johnson v. Recca

Date: Jul 31, 2012
Exclusion of Replacement Services in Third-Party Tort Actions: Insights from Johnson v. Recca Introduction Johnson v. Recca, decided on July 30, 2012, by the Supreme Court of Michigan, addresses the...
PEOPLE v. VAUGHN: Reinforcing the Forfeiture Rule for Public Trial Rights under Carines

PEOPLE v. VAUGHN: Reinforcing the Forfeiture Rule for Public Trial Rights under Carines

Date: Jul 10, 2012
PEOPLE v. VAUGHN: Reinforcing the Forfeiture Rule for Public Trial Rights under Carines Introduction In PEOPLE v. VAUGHN, 491 Mich. 642 (2012), the Supreme Court of Michigan addressed pivotal issues...
Establishing Clear and Convincing Evidence Standards in Termination of Parental Rights: Analysis of In re FREY (297 Mich. App. 242)

Establishing Clear and Convincing Evidence Standards in Termination of Parental Rights: Analysis of In re FREY (297 Mich. App. 242)

Date: Jul 4, 2012
Establishing Clear and Convincing Evidence Standards in Termination of Parental Rights: Analysis of In re FREY (297 Mich. App. 242) Introduction In re FREY (297 Mich. App. 242) is a pivotal case...
Michigan Supreme Court Reaffirms Insurer's Right to Avoid Liability on Fraudulent Insurance Applications in Titan Insurance Co. v. Hyten

Michigan Supreme Court Reaffirms Insurer's Right to Avoid Liability on Fraudulent Insurance Applications in Titan Insurance Co. v. Hyten

Date: Jun 16, 2012
Michigan Supreme Court Reaffirms Insurer's Right to Avoid Liability on Fraudulent Insurance Applications in Titan Insurance Co. v. Hyten Introduction In the landmark case of Titan Insurance Company...
Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Admissibility of Other-Acts Evidence in Offenses Against Minors Over Court Rules

Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Admissibility of Other-Acts Evidence in Offenses Against Minors Over Court Rules

Date: Jun 9, 2012
Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Admissibility of Other-Acts Evidence in Offenses Against Minors Over Court Rules Introduction The Supreme Court of Michigan, in its 2012 decision PEOPLE v....
Reaffirming Individual Best Interests in Termination of Parental Rights: In re OLIVE/METTS MINORS

Reaffirming Individual Best Interests in Termination of Parental Rights: In re OLIVE/METTS MINORS

Date: Jun 6, 2012
Reaffirming Individual Best Interests in Termination of Parental Rights: In re OLIVE/METTS MINORS Introduction The case In re OLIVE/METTS MINORS (297 Mich. App. 35), adjudicated by the Court of...
Enforcement of Explicit Notice Provisions in Insurance Policies: Insights from DEFRAIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Enforcement of Explicit Notice Provisions in Insurance Policies: Insights from DEFRAIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Date: May 31, 2012
Enforcement of Explicit Notice Provisions in Insurance Policies: Insights from DEFRAIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Introduction The case of DEFRAIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL...
Mandatory Lifetime Electronic Monitoring Must Be Disclosed at Plea Hearings – People v. Cole

Mandatory Lifetime Electronic Monitoring Must Be Disclosed at Plea Hearings – People v. Cole

Date: May 26, 2012
Mandatory Lifetime Electronic Monitoring Must Be Disclosed at Plea Hearings – People v. Cole Introduction In the landmark case of People v. Cole, the Supreme Court of Michigan addressed a critical...
Waiver of Confrontation Rights and Video Testimony in PEOPLE v. BUIE

Waiver of Confrontation Rights and Video Testimony in PEOPLE v. BUIE

Date: May 25, 2012
Waiver of Confrontation Rights and Video Testimony in PEOPLE v. BUIE Introduction PEOPLE v. BUIE, 491 Mich. 294 (2012), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan that addressed the...
Reaffirmation of the Cress Test: PEOPLE v. RAO and Its Implications for Newly Discovered Evidence

Reaffirmation of the Cress Test: PEOPLE v. RAO and Its Implications for Newly Discovered Evidence

Date: May 18, 2012
Reaffirmation of the Cress Test: PEOPLE v. RAO and Its Implications for Newly Discovered Evidence Introduction PEOPLE v. RAO (491 Mich. 271), adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Michigan on May 17,...
Supreme Court of Michigan Reinstates Cameron: Clarifying the Interaction Between MCL 600.5851(1) and MCL 500.3145(1)

Supreme Court of Michigan Reinstates Cameron: Clarifying the Interaction Between MCL 600.5851(1) and MCL 500.3145(1)

Date: May 16, 2012
Supreme Court of Michigan Reinstates Cameron: Clarifying the Interaction Between MCL 600.5851(1) and MCL 500.3145(1) Introduction In the landmark case of Doreen JOSEPH, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. AUTO...
Michigan Supreme Court Abolishes “Imperfect Self-Defense” as a Freestanding Defense in Homicide Cases – PEOPLE v. REESE

Michigan Supreme Court Abolishes “Imperfect Self-Defense” as a Freestanding Defense in Homicide Cases – PEOPLE v. REESE

Date: May 15, 2012
Michigan Supreme Court Abolishes “Imperfect Self-Defense” as a Freestanding Defense in Homicide Cases – PEOPLE v. REESE Introduction In PEOPLE v. REESE, 491 Mich. 127 (2012), the Michigan Supreme...
Preservation of Common-Law Rights to Resist Unlawful Police Conduct in PEOPLE v. MORENO

Preservation of Common-Law Rights to Resist Unlawful Police Conduct in PEOPLE v. MORENO

Date: Apr 21, 2012
Preservation of Common-Law Rights to Resist Unlawful Police Conduct in PEOPLE v. MORENO Introduction PEOPLE v. MORENO, 491 Mich. 38 (2012), is a pivotal case decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan...
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Admit Crucial Evidence Leading to Reversal in PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Admit Crucial Evidence Leading to Reversal in PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG

Date: Oct 27, 2011
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Failure to Admit Crucial Evidence Leading to Reversal in PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG Introduction In PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG, 490 Mich. 281 (2011), the Supreme Court 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