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

U.S. Supreme Court Case Commentaries

“Exclusive” No More?  McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act

“Exclusive” No More? McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Exclusive” No More? McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act 1. Introduction On 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court...
Stanley v. City of Sanford — Cementing a Temporal Limit on “Qualified Individual” Status under ADA Title I

Stanley v. City of Sanford — Cementing a Temporal Limit on “Qualified Individual” Status under ADA Title I

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Stanley v. City of Sanford (2025): The Supreme Court Imposes a Temporal Boundary on Who Qualifies as a “Qualified Individual” under ADA Title I 1. Introduction Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S....
Beyond the Job: Stanley v. City of Sanford and the Temporal Limits of “Qualified Individual” Status Under the ADA

Beyond the Job: Stanley v. City of Sanford and the Temporal Limits of “Qualified Individual” Status Under the ADA

Date: Jun 21, 2025
Beyond the Job: Stanley v. City of Sanford and the Temporal Limits of “Qualified Individual” Status Under the ADA Introduction Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), is the Supreme Court’s...
From Local Petitions to National Venue: The Supreme Court’s Two-Step Test for the CAA’s “Nationwide Scope or Effect” Exception — Commentary on EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (2025)

From Local Petitions to National Venue: The Supreme Court’s Two-Step Test for the CAA’s “Nationwide Scope or Effect” Exception — Commentary on EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (2025)

Date: Jun 20, 2025
From Local Petitions to National Venue: The Supreme Court’s Two-Step Test for the Clean Air Act’s “Nationwide Scope or Effect” Exception I. Introduction EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.,...
Hobbs Act Party Status Clarified: NRC v. Texas (2025)

Hobbs Act Party Status Clarified: NRC v. Texas (2025)

Date: Jun 20, 2025
“Only Applicants and Successful Intervenors May Sue”: Supreme Court Tightens the Hobbs Act’s “Party Aggrieved” Test in NRC v. Texas (2025) Introduction In Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al. v....
Oklahoma v. EPA: Individual SIP Disapprovals Are Regionally Reviewable – Refining the Venue Framework Under CAA §7607(b)(1)

Oklahoma v. EPA: Individual SIP Disapprovals Are Regionally Reviewable – Refining the Venue Framework Under CAA §7607(b)(1)

Date: Jun 20, 2025
Oklahoma v. EPA: Individual SIP Disapprovals Are Regionally Reviewable – Refining the Venue Framework Under CAA §7607(b)(1) 1. Introduction In Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 605 U.S....
“Intertwined-Issue Jury Right” — Perttu v. Richards Recasts the PLRA Exhaustion Debate

“Intertwined-Issue Jury Right” — Perttu v. Richards Recasts the PLRA Exhaustion Debate

Date: Jun 20, 2025
“Intertwined-Issue Jury Right” — Perttu v. Richards Recasts the PLRA Exhaustion Debate 1  Introduction Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), is the Supreme Court’s first major encounter with the...

        Transgender Treatment Bans and Equal Protection: United States v. Skrmetti Establishes
        Rational-Basis Review for State Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

Transgender Treatment Bans and Equal Protection: United States v. Skrmetti Establishes Rational-Basis Review for State Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

Date: Jun 20, 2025
Transgender Treatment Bans and Equal Protection: United States v. Skrmetti (2025) Sets the Rational-Basis Benchmark Introduction In United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 (June 18 2025), the U.S....
“One Standard for All” – The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Bad-Faith or Gross-Misjudgment” Hurdle in ADA & §504 Education Cases

“One Standard for All” – The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Bad-Faith or Gross-Misjudgment” Hurdle in ADA & §504 Education Cases

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“One Standard for All” – The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Bad-Faith or Gross-Misjudgment” Hurdle in ADA & §504 Education Cases Introduction In A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist....
“When the Levy Vanishes, So Does Jurisdiction” –  Commissioner v. Zuch and the New Limits on Tax Court Review under 26 U.S.C. § 6330

“When the Levy Vanishes, So Does Jurisdiction” – Commissioner v. Zuch and the New Limits on Tax Court Review under 26 U.S.C. § 6330

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“When the Levy Vanishes, So Does Jurisdiction” – Commissioner v. Zuch and the New Limits on Tax Court Review under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 I. Introduction Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch, 605 U.S....

    Narrowing the FTCA Exceptions: Martin v. United States
    Establishes that the “Law-Enforcement Proviso” Overrides
    Only §2680(h) and Rejects a Supremacy-Clause Defense

Narrowing the FTCA Exceptions: Martin v. United States Establishes that the “Law-Enforcement Proviso” Overrides Only §2680(h) and Rejects a Supremacy-Clause Defense

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Narrowing the FTCA Exceptions: Martin v. United States (2025) Clarifies the Limited Reach of the “Law-Enforcement Proviso” and Eliminates the Eleventh Circuit’s Supremacy-Clause Defense I....
The Forward-Relation Doctrine Extended: No Second Notice Required After Reopening Appeal Time under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c)

The Forward-Relation Doctrine Extended: No Second Notice Required After Reopening Appeal Time under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c)

Date: Jun 18, 2025
The Forward-Relation Doctrine Extended: No Second Notice Required After Reopening Appeal Time under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c) Introduction Parrish v. United States (605 U.S. ___ (2025)) is the Supreme...

        “Final-Judgment Finality” – Rivers v. Guerrero Settles When a 
        Habeas Filing Becomes “Second or Successive” under AEDPA

“Final-Judgment Finality” – Rivers v. Guerrero Settles When a Habeas Filing Becomes “Second or Successive” under AEDPA

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“Final-Judgment Finality” – Rivers v. Guerrero Settles When a Habeas Filing Becomes “Second or Successive” under AEDPA Introduction Rivers v. Guerrero, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), resolves a long-standing...
“Beyond Magic Words” –  Soto v. United States and the Re-Configuration of the Barring Act’s “Another Law” Exception

“Beyond Magic Words” – Soto v. United States and the Re-Configuration of the Barring Act’s “Another Law” Exception

Date: Jun 18, 2025
“Beyond Magic Words” – Soto v. United States (2025) and the Re-Configuration of the Barring Act’s “Another Law” Exception Introduction In Soto v. United States, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), a unanimous...
SSA v. AFSCME (2025): The Supreme Court Softens the Irreparable-Harm Requirement for Governmental Stay Applications

SSA v. AFSCME (2025): The Supreme Court Softens the Irreparable-Harm Requirement for Governmental Stay Applications

Date: Jun 10, 2025
SSA v. AFSCME (605 U.S. ____ (2025)): The Supreme Court Softens the Irreparable-Harm Requirement for Governmental Stay Applications 1. Introduction SSA v. AFSCME concerns an “emergency-docket”...
From Motivation to Function: The Supreme Court’s Denominational-Neutrality Test for Religious-Employer Exemptions

From Motivation to Function: The Supreme Court’s Denominational-Neutrality Test for Religious-Employer Exemptions

Date: Jun 10, 2025
From Motivation to Function: The Supreme Court’s Denominational-Neutrality Test for Religious-Employer Exemptions 1. Introduction On 5 June 2025 the United States Supreme Court delivered a unanimous...
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Background-Circumstances” Hurdle for Majority-Group Plaintiffs under Title VII

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Background-Circumstances” Hurdle for Majority-Group Plaintiffs under Title VII

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: The Supreme Court Abolishes the “Background-Circumstances” Hurdle for Majority-Group Plaintiffs under Title VII Introduction In Ames v. Ohio Department of...
“Extraordinary Means Extraordinary”: The Supreme Court Re-cements the Rigid Threshold for Rule 60(b)(6) Motions and Rejects Any Balancing with Rule 15(a)

“Extraordinary Means Extraordinary”: The Supreme Court Re-cements the Rigid Threshold for Rule 60(b)(6) Motions and Rejects Any Balancing with Rule 15(a)

Date: Jun 10, 2025
“Extraordinary Means Extraordinary”: The Supreme Court Re-cements the Rigid Threshold for Rule 60(b)(6) Motions and Rejects Any Balancing with Rule 15(a) 1. Introduction In BLOM Bank SAL v....
“Automatic Personal Jurisdiction” under the FSIA: CC/Devas v. Antrix and the Demise of the Minimum-Contacts Overlay

“Automatic Personal Jurisdiction” under the FSIA: CC/Devas v. Antrix and the Demise of the Minimum-Contacts Overlay

Date: Jun 10, 2025
“Automatic Personal Jurisdiction” under the FSIA: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. & Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (U.S. 2025) I. Introduction The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in...
No Proselytization Requirement: The Denominational-Neutrality Rule Refined in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin LIRC (U.S. 2025)

No Proselytization Requirement: The Denominational-Neutrality Rule Refined in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin LIRC (U.S. 2025)

Date: Jun 10, 2025
No Proselytization Requirement: The U.S. Supreme Court Refines the Denominational-Neutrality Rule in Religious Employer Exemptions Introduction In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor &...
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