Log In
  • India
  • US
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)
  • Commentaries
    United Kingdom
    England and Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland
    Ireland
Log In Sign Up UK Judgments
  • India
  • US

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

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...
Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies: An Analysis of CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS

Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies: An Analysis of CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS

Date: Mar 23, 2005
Exclusivity of Statutory Remedies: An Analysis of CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS Introduction CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS, 544 U.S. 113 (2005), is a landmark case decided by the...
Reevaluating Cronic Presumptions in Bell v. Quintero: A Comprehensive Commentary

Reevaluating Cronic Presumptions in Bell v. Quintero: A Comprehensive Commentary

Date: Mar 22, 2005
Reevaluating Cronic Presumptions in Bell v. Quintero: A Comprehensive Commentary Introduction Bell v. Quintero, 544 U.S. 936 (2005), presents a pivotal examination of the application of the precedent...
Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Enhancing Transparency in Tax Court Proceedings

Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Enhancing Transparency in Tax Court Proceedings

Date: Mar 8, 2005
Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Enhancing Transparency in Tax Court Proceedings Introduction Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 544 U.S. 40 (2005), is a landmark case...
Wilkinson v. Dotson: Expanding State Prisoners' Remedies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Wilkinson v. Dotson: Expanding State Prisoners' Remedies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Date: Mar 8, 2005
Wilkinson v. Dotson: Expanding State Prisoners' Remedies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Introduction Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. Dotson et al. (544 U.S....
Shepard v. United States: Narrowing Evidentiary Scope for ACCA Sentencing Enhancements

Shepard v. United States: Narrowing Evidentiary Scope for ACCA Sentencing Enhancements

Date: Mar 8, 2005
Shepard v. United States: Narrowing Evidentiary Scope for ACCA Sentencing Enhancements Introduction In the landmark decision of Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), the United States Supreme...
Reaffirming the Totten Doctrine: TENET ET AL. v. DOE ET ux.

Reaffirming the Totten Doctrine: TENET ET AL. v. DOE ET ux.

Date: Mar 3, 2005
Reaffirming the Totten Doctrine: TENET ET AL. v. DOE ET ux. Introduction In TENET ET AL. v. DOE ET ux. (544 U.S. 1, 2005), the United States Supreme Court revisited the longstanding legal principle...
ROPER v. SIMMONS: Establishing the Juvenile Death Penalty Ban Under the Eighth Amendment

ROPER v. SIMMONS: Establishing the Juvenile Death Penalty Ban Under the Eighth Amendment

Date: Mar 2, 2005
ROPER v. SIMMONS: Establishing the Juvenile Death Penalty Ban Under the Eighth Amendment Introduction ROPER v. SIMMONS (543 U.S. 551, 2005) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie 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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert

We use cookies to improve your experience

You can accept all cookies or turn off analytical ones.