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

United States v. Patane: Clarifying Miranda's Scope on Physical Evidence

United States v. Patane: Clarifying Miranda's Scope on Physical Evidence

Date: Jun 29, 2004
United States v. Patane: Clarifying Miranda's Scope on Physical Evidence Introduction United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that addresses the intersection...
Miranda Rights and Two-Step Interrogation Procedures: Affirmation in MISSOURI v. SEIBERT

Miranda Rights and Two-Step Interrogation Procedures: Affirmation in MISSOURI v. SEIBERT

Date: Jun 29, 2004
Miranda Rights and Two-Step Interrogation Procedures: Affirmation in MISSOURI v. SEIBERT Introduction MISSOURI v. SEIBERT, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Reaffirmation of Strickland Standards in Postconviction Relief: Insights from Holland v. Jackson

Reaffirmation of Strickland Standards in Postconviction Relief: Insights from Holland v. Jackson

Date: Jun 29, 2004
Reaffirmation of Strickland Standards in Postconviction Relief: Insights from Holland v. Jackson Introduction The case of Holland v. Jackson (542 U.S. 649, 2004) addresses critical issues surrounding...
Reaffirming Immediate Custodian and District of Confinement Rules in Habeas Corpus Petitions: RUMSFELD v. PADILLA

Reaffirming Immediate Custodian and District of Confinement Rules in Habeas Corpus Petitions: RUMSFELD v. PADILLA

Date: Jun 29, 2004
Reaffirming Immediate Custodian and District of Confinement Rules in Habeas Corpus Petitions: RUMSFELD v. PADILLA Introduction RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA ET AL., 542 U.S. 426 (2004),...
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD: Ensuring Due Process for Citizen Enemy Combatants

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD: Ensuring Due Process for Citizen Enemy Combatants

Date: Jun 29, 2004
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD: Ensuring Due Process for Citizen Enemy Combatants Introduction HAMDI v. RUMSFELD, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the...
Rasul v. Bush: Supreme Court Establishes Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction for Foreign Nationals Detained at Guantanamo Bay

Rasul v. Bush: Supreme Court Establishes Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction for Foreign Nationals Detained at Guantanamo Bay

Date: Jun 29, 2004
Rasul v. Bush: Supreme Court Establishes Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction for Foreign Nationals Detained at Guantanamo Bay Introduction Rasul et al. v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), is a landmark United...
Retroactivity of Procedural Changes in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Schriro v. Summerlin

Retroactivity of Procedural Changes in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Schriro v. Summerlin

Date: Jun 25, 2004
Retroactivity of Procedural Changes in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Schriro v. Summerlin Introduction Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Tennard v. Dretke: Redefining Standards for Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing

Tennard v. Dretke: Redefining Standards for Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing

Date: Jun 25, 2004
Tennard v. Dretke: Redefining Standards for Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing Introduction Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Executive Privilege and Judicial Discovery: Analyzing Cheney v. U.S. Supreme Court (2004)

Executive Privilege and Judicial Discovery: Analyzing Cheney v. U.S. Supreme Court (2004)

Date: Jun 25, 2004
Executive Privilege and Judicial Discovery: Analyzing Cheney v. U.S. Supreme Court (2004) Introduction In the landmark case Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States...
Sentencing Enhancements Must Be Proven by a Jury: Blakely v. Washington

Sentencing Enhancements Must Be Proven by a Jury: Blakely v. Washington

Date: Jun 25, 2004
Sentencing Enhancements Must Be Proven by a Jury: Blakely v. Washington Introduction Blakely v. Washington is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, decided on June 24, 2004. The...
Retroactivity of Capital Sentencing Rules: Analysis of Beard v. Banks

Retroactivity of Capital Sentencing Rules: Analysis of Beard v. Banks

Date: Jun 25, 2004
Retroactivity of Capital Sentencing Rules: Analysis of Beard v. Banks Introduction Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. Banks (542 U.S. 406, 2004) is a significant...
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Multiple Cases: Implications and Insights

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Multiple Cases: Implications and Insights

Date: Jun 22, 2004
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Multiple Cases: Implications and Insights Introduction On June 21, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of decisions denying petitions for writs of...
AETNA Health Inc. v. Davila: Supreme Court Upholds ERISA Preemption of State Law Claims

AETNA Health Inc. v. Davila: Supreme Court Upholds ERISA Preemption of State Law Claims

Date: Jun 22, 2004
AETNA Health Inc. v. Davila: Supreme Court Upholds ERISA Preemption of State Law Claims Introduction In the landmark case AETNA Health Inc., fka AETNA U.S. Healthcare Inc., et al. v. Davila, the...
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada: Upholding Stop and Identify Statutes

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada: Upholding Stop and Identify Statutes

Date: Jun 22, 2004
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada: Upholding Stop and Identify Statutes Introduction Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a landmark Supreme...
Intel v. AMD: Broadening Discovery Assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a)

Intel v. AMD: Broadening Discovery Assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a)

Date: Jun 22, 2004
Intel v. AMD: Broadening Discovery Assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a) Introduction Intel Corporation ("Intel") and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") are prominent competitors in the global...
Ford v. Warden: Clarifying Obligations of Federal Courts in Handling Mixed Habeas Petitions

Ford v. Warden: Clarifying Obligations of Federal Courts in Handling Mixed Habeas Petitions

Date: Jun 22, 2004
Ford v. Warden: Clarifying Obligations of Federal Courts in Handling Mixed Habeas Petitions Introduction Ford v. Warden, 542 U.S. 225 (2004), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court case that...
Limits on Prudential Standing in Establishment Clause Challenges: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Limits on Prudential Standing in Establishment Clause Challenges: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Date: Jun 15, 2004
Limits on Prudential Standing in Establishment Clause Challenges: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow Introduction Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1...
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Implications and Analysis

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Implications and Analysis

Date: Jun 15, 2004
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Implications and Analysis Introduction On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court denied a series of petitions for writs of certiorari in numerous cases,...
Establishing the Reasonable Probability Standard for Unpreserved Rule 11 Errors in Criminal Proceedings

Establishing the Reasonable Probability Standard for Unpreserved Rule 11 Errors in Criminal Proceedings

Date: Jun 15, 2004
Establishing the Reasonable Probability Standard for Unpreserved Rule 11 Errors in Criminal Proceedings Introduction United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), represents a pivotal...
Constructive Discharge Under Title VII: Insights from Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders

Constructive Discharge Under Title VII: Insights from Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders

Date: Jun 15, 2004
Constructive Discharge Under Title VII: Insights from Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders Introduction In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), the United States Supreme Court...
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