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

Impact of Medellín v. Dretke on Vienna Convention Rights and Federal Habeas Corpus

Impact of Medellín v. Dretke on Vienna Convention Rights and Federal Habeas Corpus

Date: May 24, 2005
Impact of Medellín v. Dretke on Vienna Convention Rights and Federal Habeas Corpus Introduction Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that delves into the...
Government Speech and Compelled Subsidies: The Supreme Court's Decision in JOHANNS v. Livestock Marketing Association

Government Speech and Compelled Subsidies: The Supreme Court's Decision in JOHANNS v. Livestock Marketing Association

Date: May 24, 2005
Government Speech and Compelled Subsidies: The Supreme Court's Decision in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association Introduction The Supreme Court case Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v....
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Lingle: Redefining Regulatory Takings Under the Fifth Amendment

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Lingle: Redefining Regulatory Takings Under the Fifth Amendment

Date: May 24, 2005
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Lingle: Redefining Regulatory Takings Under the Fifth Amendment Introduction In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Lingle, 544 U.S. 528 (2005), the United States Supreme Court addressed a...
Restricting the Use of Visible Shackles in Capital Sentencing: Deck v. Missouri

Restricting the Use of Visible Shackles in Capital Sentencing: Deck v. Missouri

Date: May 24, 2005
Restricting the Use of Visible Shackles in Capital Sentencing: Deck v. Missouri Introduction The Supreme Court's decision in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), represents a significant...
Granholm v. Heald: Equal Access in Direct Wine Shipments Under the Commerce Clause

Granholm v. Heald: Equal Access in Direct Wine Shipments Under the Commerce Clause

Date: May 17, 2005
Granholm v. Heald: Equal Access in Direct Wine Shipments Under the Commerce Clause Introduction Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the...
Pace v. DiGuglielmo: Clarifying AEDPA's Statute of Limitations on Federal Habeas Petitions

Pace v. DiGuglielmo: Clarifying AEDPA's Statute of Limitations on Federal Habeas Petitions

Date: Apr 28, 2005
Pace v. DiGuglielmo: Clarifying AEDPA's Statute of Limitations on Federal Habeas Petitions Introduction Pace v. DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al. (544...
FIFRA Preemption Clarified: Bates v. Dow AgroSciences Commentary

FIFRA Preemption Clarified: Bates v. Dow AgroSciences Commentary

Date: Apr 28, 2005
FIFRA Preemption Clarified: Bates v. Dow AgroSciences Commentary Introduction The Supreme Court's decision in Bates et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC. (544 U.S. 431, 2005) marks a significant moment in...
Interpretation of "Convicted in Any Court": Small v. United States Establishes Domestic Limitation

Interpretation of "Convicted in Any Court": Small v. United States Establishes Domestic Limitation

Date: Apr 27, 2005
Interpretation of "Convicted in Any Court": Small v. United States Establishes Domestic Limitation Introduction Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that...
Affirmation of Federal Wire Fraud Statute's Applicability to Schemes Defrauding Foreign Governments

Affirmation of Federal Wire Fraud Statute's Applicability to Schemes Defrauding Foreign Governments

Date: Apr 27, 2005
Affirmation of Federal Wire Fraud Statute's Applicability to Schemes Defrauding Foreign Governments Introduction Pasquantino et al. v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a pivotal Supreme Court...
Loss Causation in Securities Fraud: Insights from Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo

Loss Causation in Securities Fraud: Insights from Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo

Date: Apr 20, 2005
Loss Causation in Securities Fraud: Insights from Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Introduction Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Broudo et al. is a pivotal United States Supreme Court...
Limits on Prior Restraint: First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida

Limits on Prior Restraint: First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida

Date: Apr 16, 2005
Limits on Prior Restraint: First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida Introduction In the landmark case Multimedia Holdings Corp. DBA First Coast News v. Circuit Court of Florida, St. Johns County,...
Johnson v. United States: Clarifying §2255 Limitation Period for Enhanced Federal Sentences Following Vacated State Convictions

Johnson v. United States: Clarifying §2255 Limitation Period for Enhanced Federal Sentences Following Vacated State Convictions

Date: Apr 5, 2005
Johnson v. United States: Clarifying §2255 Limitation Period for Enhanced Federal Sentences Following Vacated State Convictions Introduction Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005), is a...
Rousey v. Jacoway: Affirming IRA Exemptions under Bankruptcy Code §522(d)(10)(E)

Rousey v. Jacoway: Affirming IRA Exemptions under Bankruptcy Code §522(d)(10)(E)

Date: Apr 5, 2005
Rousey v. Jacoway: Affirming IRA Exemptions under Bankruptcy Code §522(d)(10)(E) Introduction The landmark case Rousey et ux. v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005), addressed the complex interplay between...
ADEA Permits Disparate Impact Claims Affirmed in Smith v. City of Jackson

ADEA Permits Disparate Impact Claims Affirmed in Smith v. City of Jackson

Date: Mar 31, 2005
ADEA Permits Disparate Impact Claims Affirmed in Smith v. City of Jackson Introduction Smith et al. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al. (544 U.S. 228, 2005) is a significant case in the realm of...
RHINES v. WEBER: Establishing District Court Authority to Stay Mixed Habeas Petitions Under AEDPA

RHINES v. WEBER: Establishing District Court Authority to Stay Mixed Habeas Petitions Under AEDPA

Date: Mar 31, 2005
RHINES v. WEBER: Establishing District Court Authority to Stay Mixed Habeas Petitions Under AEDPA Introduction In RHINES v. WEBER, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the United States Supreme Court addressed a...
Exxon Mobil v. SABIC: Clarifying the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Exxon Mobil v. SABIC: Clarifying the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Date: Mar 31, 2005
Exxon Mobil v. SABIC: Clarifying the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Introduction Exxon Mobil Corporation et al. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (544 U.S. 280) is a landmark decision by...
Limits on Reasserting Tribal Sovereignty Over Historical Reservation Land Established in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation

Limits on Reasserting Tribal Sovereignty Over Historical Reservation Land Established in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation

Date: Mar 30, 2005
Limits on Reasserting Tribal Sovereignty Over Historical Reservation Land Established in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation Introduction Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al., 544 U.S....
Title IX's Private Right of Action Now Includes Retaliation Claims: Comprehensive Commentary on Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

Title IX's Private Right of Action Now Includes Retaliation Claims: Comprehensive Commentary on Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

Date: Mar 30, 2005
Title IX's Private Right of Action Now Includes Retaliation Claims: Comprehensive Commentary on Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education Introduction Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544...
Ensuring Fair Consideration of Mitigation Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown Warden v. Payton

Ensuring Fair Consideration of Mitigation Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown Warden v. Payton

Date: Mar 23, 2005
Ensuring Fair Consideration of Mitigation Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown Warden v. Payton Introduction Brown Warden v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005), is a pivotal case addressing...
Muehler v. Mena: Upholding Fourth Amendment Protections in Lawful Detentions

Muehler v. Mena: Upholding Fourth Amendment Protections in Lawful Detentions

Date: Mar 23, 2005
Muehler v. Mena: Upholding Fourth Amendment Protections in Lawful Detentions Introduction Muehler et al. v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the...
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