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

Eberhart v. United States: Federal Rules 33 and 45 as Non-Jurisdictional Claim-Processing Rules

Eberhart v. United States: Federal Rules 33 and 45 as Non-Jurisdictional Claim-Processing Rules

Date: Nov 1, 2005
Eberhart v. United States: Federal Rules 33 and 45 as Non-Jurisdictional Claim-Processing Rules Introduction Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005), is a significant Supreme Court decision...
Supreme Court Upholds Stay on Preliminary Injunction Against NSL Nondisclosure Provision

Supreme Court Upholds Stay on Preliminary Injunction Against NSL Nondisclosure Provision

Date: Oct 8, 2005
Supreme Court Upholds Stay on Preliminary Injunction Against NSL Nondisclosure Provision Introduction In DOE ET AL. v. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., 546 U.S. 1301 (2005), the United States...
Mandate Issuance Following Certiorari Denial: Rethinking the Boundaries of Rule 41 – Bell v. Thompson

Mandate Issuance Following Certiorari Denial: Rethinking the Boundaries of Rule 41 – Bell v. Thompson

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Mandate Issuance Following Certiorari Denial: Rethinking the Boundaries of Rule 41 – Bell v. Thompson Introduction BELL, WARDEN v. THOMPSON, 545 U.S. 794 (2005), represents a pivotal Supreme Court...
Inducement Liability in Copyright Infringement: The Grokster Decision

Inducement Liability in Copyright Infringement: The Grokster Decision

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Inducement Liability in Copyright Infringement: The Grokster Decision Introduction In the landmark case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., decided on June 27, 2005,...
Affirming the Primacy of Secular Purpose in Establishment Clause Analysis: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky

Affirming the Primacy of Secular Purpose in Establishment Clause Analysis: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Affirming the Primacy of Secular Purpose in Establishment Clause Analysis: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky Introduction McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of...
Chevron Deference and Classification of Broadband Services: Analysis of National Cable Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services

Chevron Deference and Classification of Broadband Services: Analysis of National Cable Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Chevron Deference and Classification of Broadband Services: Analysis of National Cable Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services Introduction In the landmark case of National Cable...
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: No Protected Property Interest in Restraining Order Enforcement

Castle Rock v. Gonzales: No Protected Property Interest in Restraining Order Enforcement

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: No Protected Property Interest in Restraining Order Enforcement Introduction In the landmark case Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the U.S....
Establishment Clause and Religious Symbolism: VAN ORDEN v. PERRY

Establishment Clause and Religious Symbolism: VAN ORDEN v. PERRY

Date: Jun 28, 2005
Establishment Clause and Religious Symbolism: VAN ORDEN v. PERRY Introduction VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the...
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services: Expanding Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services: Expanding Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases

Date: Jun 24, 2005
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services: Expanding Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity Cases Introduction Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., et al., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), is a...
Gonzalez v. Crosby: Clarifying the Application of Rule 60(b) in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Gonzalez v. Crosby: Clarifying the Application of Rule 60(b) in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Date: Jun 24, 2005
Gonzalez v. Crosby: Clarifying the Application of Rule 60(b) in Habeas Corpus Proceedings Introduction Gonzalez v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), is a...
KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON: Expanding the Boundaries of Public Use in Eminent Domain

KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON: Expanding the Boundaries of Public Use in Eminent Domain

Date: Jun 24, 2005
KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON: Expanding the Boundaries of Public Use in Eminent Domain Introduction KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON (545 U.S. 469, 2005) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that...
Mandatory Appointment of Counsel for Defendants Seeking First-Tier Review in Michigan: Halbert v. Michigan

Mandatory Appointment of Counsel for Defendants Seeking First-Tier Review in Michigan: Halbert v. Michigan

Date: Jun 24, 2005
Mandatory Appointment of Counsel for Defendants Seeking First-Tier Review in Michigan: Halbert v. Michigan Introduction Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005), addresses a critical issue in...
Relation Back Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Warden Mayle v. Felix

Relation Back Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Warden Mayle v. Felix

Date: Jun 24, 2005
Relation Back Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Warden Mayle v. Felix Introduction Warden Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005), represents a pivotal decision by the United...
Orff v. United States: Limiting the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Federal Reclamation Contracts

Orff v. United States: Limiting the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Federal Reclamation Contracts

Date: Jun 24, 2005
Orff v. United States: Limiting the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity in Federal Reclamation Contracts Introduction Orff et al. v. United States et al., 545 U.S. 596 (2005), is a landmark case addressed...
Michigan's Intrastate Trucking Fee Upheld: A Dormant Commerce Clause Analysis

Michigan's Intrastate Trucking Fee Upheld: A Dormant Commerce Clause Analysis

Date: Jun 21, 2005
Michigan's Intrastate Trucking Fee Upheld: A Dormant Commerce Clause Analysis Introduction In American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, 545 U.S. 429 (2005), the...
San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco: No Federal Forum Exception for Takings Claims Under Full Faith and Credit

San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco: No Federal Forum Exception for Takings Claims Under Full Faith and Credit

Date: Jun 21, 2005
San Remo Hotel v. City of San Francisco: No Federal Forum Exception for Takings Claims Under Full Faith and Credit Introduction San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco,...
Rompilla v. Beard: Reinforcing the Duty of Defense Counsel in Reviewing Prosecution's Evidence

Rompilla v. Beard: Reinforcing the Duty of Defense Counsel in Reviewing Prosecution's Evidence

Date: Jun 21, 2005
Rompilla v. Beard: Reinforcing the Duty of Defense Counsel in Reviewing Prosecution's Evidence Introduction Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Dodd v. United States: Clarifying the Limitation Period Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(3)

Dodd v. United States: Clarifying the Limitation Period Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(3)

Date: Jun 21, 2005
Dodd v. United States: Clarifying the Limitation Period Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(3) Introduction Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005), addresses a critical aspect of federal habeas corpus law,...
Supreme Court Determines State Statutes Govern Statute of Limitations for FCA Retaliation Claims

Supreme Court Determines State Statutes Govern Statute of Limitations for FCA Retaliation Claims

Date: Jun 21, 2005
Supreme Court Determines State Statutes Govern Statute of Limitations for FCA Retaliation Claims Introduction Graham County Soil Water Conservation District et al. v. United States ex rel. Wilson,...
Supreme Court Affirms Michigan’s $100 Interstate Truck Registration Fee Under Narrow SSRS Preemption

Supreme Court Affirms Michigan’s $100 Interstate Truck Registration Fee Under Narrow SSRS Preemption

Date: Jun 21, 2005
Supreme Court Affirms Michigan’s $100 Interstate Truck Registration Fee Under Narrow SSRS Preemption Introduction The United States Supreme Court, in the landmark decision of Mid-Con Freight Systems,...
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