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

Control as the Principal Factor in Defining Employee Status under the ADA: Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells

Control as the Principal Factor in Defining Employee Status under the ADA: Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells

Date: Apr 23, 2003
Control as the Principal Factor in Defining Employee Status under the ADA: Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells Introduction Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells is a...
Virginia v. Black ET AL.: Defining the Limits of First Amendment Protections on Cross Burning

Virginia v. Black ET AL.: Defining the Limits of First Amendment Protections on Cross Burning

Date: Apr 8, 2003
Virginia v. Black ET AL.: Defining the Limits of First Amendment Protections on Cross Burning Introduction Virginia v. Black ET AL., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that...
Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements in RICO Claims: Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts

Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements in RICO Claims: Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts

Date: Apr 8, 2003
Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements in RICO Claims: Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts Introduction In the landmark case PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., et al. v. Book et al. AJ, the United...
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell: Supreme Court Sets New Limits on Punitive Damages

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell: Supreme Court Sets New Limits on Punitive Damages

Date: Apr 8, 2003
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell: Supreme Court Sets New Limits on Punitive Damages Introduction In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the...
Kentucky AWP Statutes Upheld: Establishing State Regulation Over Insurance Practices under ERISA

Kentucky AWP Statutes Upheld: Establishing State Regulation Over Insurance Practices under ERISA

Date: Apr 3, 2003
Kentucky AWP Statutes Upheld: Establishing State Regulation Over Insurance Practices under ERISA Introduction In the landmark case Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc., et al. v. Miller,...
Branch v. Smith: Affirming Judicial Authority in Congressional Redistricting under the Voting Rights Act

Branch v. Smith: Affirming Judicial Authority in Congressional Redistricting under the Voting Rights Act

Date: Apr 1, 2003
Branch v. Smith: Affirming Judicial Authority in Congressional Redistricting under the Voting Rights Act Introduction Branch et al. v. Smith et al. (538 U.S. 254) is a significant United States...
Undischargeability of Settlement Debts for Fraud: Archer v. Warner

Undischargeability of Settlement Debts for Fraud: Archer v. Warner

Date: Apr 1, 2003
Undischargeability of Settlement Debts for Fraud: Archer v. Warner Introduction In the landmark case Archer et ux. v. Warner, the United States Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of whether a...
Regulatory Takings and the IOLTA Program: An Analysis of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington

Regulatory Takings and the IOLTA Program: An Analysis of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington

Date: Mar 27, 2003
Regulatory Takings and the IOLTA Program: An Analysis of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington Introduction In the landmark case of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (538 U.S. 216, 2003), the...
Requiring Clear Evidence of Discriminatory Intent in Equal Protection Claims: Analysis of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation

Requiring Clear Evidence of Discriminatory Intent in Equal Protection Claims: Analysis of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation

Date: Mar 26, 2003
Requiring Clear Evidence of Discriminatory Intent in Equal Protection Claims: Analysis of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation Introduction Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, et al. v. Buckeye...
Threshold for AEDPA Applicability in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Woodford v. Garceau

Threshold for AEDPA Applicability in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Woodford v. Garceau

Date: Mar 26, 2003
Threshold for AEDPA Applicability in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Woodford v. Garceau Introduction Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003), is a landmark Supreme Court decision that...
Kenyeres v. Ashcroft: Clarifying Standards for Temporary Stay of Removal

Kenyeres v. Ashcroft: Clarifying Standards for Temporary Stay of Removal

Date: Mar 22, 2003
Kenyeres v. Ashcroft: Clarifying Standards for Temporary Stay of Removal Introduction Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301 (2003), is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court that...
Recovery for Fear of Future Illness under FELA: Insights from Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Ayers Et Al.

Recovery for Fear of Future Illness under FELA: Insights from Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Ayers Et Al.

Date: Mar 11, 2003
Recovery for Fear of Future Illness under FELA: Insights from Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Ayers Et Al. Introduction Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Ayers Et Al. (538 U.S. 135) is a landmark...
Expansion of False Claims Act Liability to Local Governments

Expansion of False Claims Act Liability to Local Governments

Date: Mar 11, 2003
Expansion of False Claims Act Liability to Local Governments Introduction Cook County, Illinois v. United States ex rel. Chandler (538 U.S. 119, 2003) is a landmark decision by the United States...
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe: Upholding Statutory Classification Over Procedural Due Process

Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe: Upholding Statutory Classification Over Procedural Due Process

Date: Mar 6, 2003
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe: Upholding Statutory Classification Over Procedural Due Process Introduction In the landmark case of Connecticut Department of Public Safety et al. v....
Clarifying AEDPA's 'Unreasonable Application' Standard in Lockyer v. Andrade

Clarifying AEDPA's 'Unreasonable Application' Standard in Lockyer v. Andrade

Date: Mar 6, 2003
Clarifying AEDPA's 'Unreasonable Application' Standard in Lockyer v. Andrade Introduction Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision...
Three Strikes and You're Out: Ewing v. California and the Proportionality Principle under the Eighth Amendment

Three Strikes and You're Out: Ewing v. California and the Proportionality Principle under the Eighth Amendment

Date: Mar 6, 2003
Three Strikes and You're Out: Ewing v. California and the Proportionality Principle under the Eighth Amendment Introduction Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is a landmark case in which the...
Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act Upheld as Nonpunitive under the Ex Post Facto Clause

Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act Upheld as Nonpunitive under the Ex Post Facto Clause

Date: Mar 6, 2003
Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act Upheld as Nonpunitive under the Ex Post Facto Clause Introduction In the landmark case Smith et al. v. Doe et al., 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the United States Supreme...
Allocation of R&D Expenses Under DISC Regulations: Insights from Boeing Co. v. United States

Allocation of R&D Expenses Under DISC Regulations: Insights from Boeing Co. v. United States

Date: Mar 5, 2003
Allocation of R&D Expenses Under DISC Regulations: Insights from Boeing Co. v. United States Introduction Boeing Co. et al. v. United States, 537 U.S. 437 (2003), is a landmark case adjudicated by...
Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's Secret: Clarifying Actual Dilution Requirements under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act

Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's Secret: Clarifying Actual Dilution Requirements under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act

Date: Mar 5, 2003
Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's Secret: Clarifying Actual Dilution Requirements under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act Introduction In the landmark case of Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's...
Indian Tucker Act Jurisdiction Expanded: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

Indian Tucker Act Jurisdiction Expanded: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

Date: Mar 5, 2003
Indian Tucker Act Jurisdiction Expanded: United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe Introduction United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (537 U.S. 465, 2003) marks a significant development in...
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