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

Finality Date for §2255 Postconviction Relief Established in Clay v. United States

Finality Date for §2255 Postconviction Relief Established in Clay v. United States

Date: Mar 5, 2003
Finality Date for §2255 Postconviction Relief Established in Clay v. United States Introduction Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Limits on Fiduciary Duty Claims Under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act: Comprehensive Commentary on UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION

Limits on Fiduciary Duty Claims Under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act: Comprehensive Commentary on UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION

Date: Mar 5, 2003
Limits on Fiduciary Duty Claims Under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act Comprehensive Commentary on UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) Introduction UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION,...
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: Clarifying the 'Obtaining Property' Requirement under the Hobbs Act

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: Clarifying the 'Obtaining Property' Requirement under the Hobbs Act

Date: Feb 27, 2003
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: Clarifying the 'Obtaining Property' Requirement under the Hobbs Act Introduction Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. (537 U.S....
State Representative Payee Practices and the Antiattachment Provision: Insights from Washington State Dept. v. Keffeler Estate

State Representative Payee Practices and the Antiattachment Provision: Insights from Washington State Dept. v. Keffeler Estate

Date: Feb 26, 2003
State Representative Payee Practices and the Antiattachment Provision: Insights from Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Services et al. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler et al. Introduction...
Miller-El v. Cockrell: Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Substantial Showing for Certificates of Appealability in Racial Jury Selection

Miller-El v. Cockrell: Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Substantial Showing for Certificates of Appealability in Racial Jury Selection

Date: Feb 26, 2003
Miller-El v. Cockrell: Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Substantial Showing for Certificates of Appealability in Racial Jury Selection Introduction Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322...
Supreme Court Clarifies §525 Bankruptcy Protections Against FCC's License Revocations

Supreme Court Clarifies §525 Bankruptcy Protections Against FCC's License Revocations

Date: Jan 28, 2003
Supreme Court Clarifies §525 Bankruptcy Protections Against FCC's License Revocations Introduction In Federal Communications Commission v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc. et al., 537 U.S. 293...
Vicarious Liability Under the Fair Housing Act: Meyer v. Holley et al.

Vicarious Liability Under the Fair Housing Act: Meyer v. Holley et al.

Date: Jan 23, 2003
Vicarious Liability Under the Fair Housing Act: Meyer v. Holley et al. Introduction Meyer v. Holley et al., 537 U.S. 280 (2003), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court addressing...
Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit's Conspiracy Termination Rule

Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit's Conspiracy Termination Rule

Date: Jan 22, 2003
Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit's Conspiracy Termination Rule Introduction United States v. Jimenez Recio et al. is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, decided on January 21, 2003....
Price v. United States: Requirement of Prior Conviction Notice under 21 U.S.C. §851(a)

Price v. United States: Requirement of Prior Conviction Notice under 21 U.S.C. §851(a)

Date: Jan 22, 2003
Price v. United States: Requirement of Prior Conviction Notice under 21 U.S.C. §851(a) Introduction Price v. United States (537 U.S. 1152, 2003) is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the...
ELDRED v. ASHCROFT: Upholding Retroactive Copyright Extensions

ELDRED v. ASHCROFT: Upholding Retroactive Copyright Extensions

Date: Jan 16, 2003
ELDRED v. ASHCROFT: Upholding Retroactive Copyright Extensions Introduction Eldred et al. v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addressed...
Validating Untimely Assignments Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act: Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

Validating Untimely Assignments Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act: Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

Date: Jan 16, 2003
Validating Untimely Assignments Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act: Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. Introduction Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Peabody Coal Co. et al., 537...
Upholding Federal Privileges: Pierce County v. Guillen and the Scope of 23 U.S.C. § 409

Upholding Federal Privileges: Pierce County v. Guillen and the Scope of 23 U.S.C. § 409

Date: Jan 15, 2003
Upholding Federal Privileges: Pierce County v. Guillen and the Scope of 23 U.S.C. § 409 Introduction Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen is a landmark Supreme Court decision that delves into the...
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania: Clarifying Double Jeopardy in Capital Sentencing

Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania: Clarifying Double Jeopardy in Capital Sentencing

Date: Jan 15, 2003
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania: Clarifying Double Jeopardy in Capital Sentencing Introduction Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision addressing the application...
ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL Warden: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 60(b) Motions in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL Warden: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 60(b) Motions in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Date: Dec 11, 2002
ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL Warden: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 60(b) Motions in Habeas Corpus Proceedings Introduction In ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL Warden, 537 U.S. 88 (2002), the United States Supreme Court...
Arbitrator's Authority to Decide Procedural Time Limits: Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Arbitrator's Authority to Decide Procedural Time Limits: Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Date: Dec 11, 2002
Arbitrator's Authority to Decide Procedural Time Limits: Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. Introduction Howsam, Individually and as Trustee for the E. Richard Howsam, Jr., Irrevocable Life...
Judicial Review Under 18 U.S.C. §925(c) Requires an Actual Denial

Judicial Review Under 18 U.S.C. §925(c) Requires an Actual Denial

Date: Dec 11, 2002
Judicial Review Under 18 U.S.C. §925(c) Requires an Actual Denial Introduction United States et al. v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002), addresses a critical issue regarding the statutory interpretation of...
FBSA Pre-emption and State Common-Law Tort Claims: Analysis of SPRIETSMA v. MERCURY MARINE

FBSA Pre-emption and State Common-Law Tort Claims: Analysis of SPRIETSMA v. MERCURY MARINE

Date: Dec 4, 2002
FBSA Pre-emption and State Common-Law Tort Claims: Analysis of SPRIETSMA v. MERCURY MARINE Introduction SPRIETSMA v. MERCURY MARINE, 537 U.S. 51 (2002), is a landmark case in the realm of federal...
Limitations on the All Writs Act for Removal Jurisdiction: Syngenta v. Henson

Limitations on the All Writs Act for Removal Jurisdiction: Syngenta v. Henson

Date: Nov 6, 2002
Limitations on the All Writs Act for Removal Jurisdiction: Syngenta v. Henson Introduction Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., et al. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision...
Maintaining Reciprocity Agreements: Supreme Court Upholds ICC's Fee-Cap Interpretation under ISTEA in YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MICHIGAN

Maintaining Reciprocity Agreements: Supreme Court Upholds ICC's Fee-Cap Interpretation under ISTEA in YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MICHIGAN

Date: Nov 6, 2002
Maintaining Reciprocity Agreements: Supreme Court Upholds ICC's Fee-Cap Interpretation under ISTEA in YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MICHIGAN Introduction YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MICHIGAN ET...
Limiting Habeas Corpus Relief: Insights from Early Warden v. Packer

Limiting Habeas Corpus Relief: Insights from Early Warden v. Packer

Date: Nov 5, 2002
Limiting Habeas Corpus Relief: Insights from Early Warden v. Packer Introduction Early Warden et al. v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (2002) is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that addressed 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