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.
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:
Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
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.
Kansas Fuel Tax and Tribal Sovereignty: Insights from Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Introduction The landmark Supreme Court case Wagnon, Secretary, Kansas Department of Revenue v. Prairie...
Complete Diversity Affirmed in Removal Jurisdiction: Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche et ux. Introduction Lincoln Property Co. et al. v. Roche et ux. is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision...
Supreme Court Upholds Transferred Intent Doctrine in Ohio Aggravated Murder Cases Introduction Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005), represents a pivotal decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Burden of Persuasion in IDEA Hearings: Schaffer v. Weast Introduction Schaffer, a Minor, by His Parents and Next Friends, Schaffer et vir, et al. v. Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public...
United States v. Olson et al. (546 U.S. 43): Clarifying Sovereign Immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act Introduction United States v. Olson et al. is a landmark decision delivered by the United...
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez: Clarifying Compensation for Walking Time under the FLSA Introduction IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, rendered on November 8,...
Eberhart v. United States: Reclassifying Rule 33 Time Limits as Claim-Processing Rules Introduction Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2006), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that redefined...
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 Introduction In DOE ET AL. v. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., 546 U.S. 1301 (2005), the United States...
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 Introduction McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of...
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...
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Introduction Warden Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005), represents a pivotal decision by the United...