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

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...
Supreme Court Upholds Strickland's "Reasonable Probability" Standard in Federal Habeas Review: Woodford v. Visciotti

Supreme Court Upholds Strickland's "Reasonable Probability" Standard in Federal Habeas Review: Woodford v. Visciotti

Date: Nov 5, 2002
Supreme Court Upholds Strickland's "Reasonable Probability" Standard in Federal Habeas Review: Woodford v. Visciotti Introduction Woodford, Warden v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (2002), is a pivotal...
Challenging the Appellate Overreach: INS v. Ventura and the Preservation of Agency Expertise in Asylum Cases

Challenging the Appellate Overreach: INS v. Ventura and the Preservation of Agency Expertise in Asylum Cases

Date: Nov 5, 2002
Challenging the Appellate Overreach: INS v. Ventura and the Preservation of Agency Expertise in Asylum Cases Introduction The Supreme Court case Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Orlando...
Judicial Commentary: Prohibition of Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders in In re Stanford

Judicial Commentary: Prohibition of Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders in In re Stanford

Date: Oct 22, 2002
Judicial Commentary: Prohibition of Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders in In re Stanford Introduction The case of In re Stanford, 537 U.S. 968 (2002), centers on the constitutional debate...
Procedural Default Under Rule 32.2(a)(3) is Independent of Federal Law

Procedural Default Under Rule 32.2(a)(3) is Independent of Federal Law

Date: Jun 29, 2002
Procedural Default Under Rule 32.2(a)(3) is Independent of Federal Law Introduction In Terry L. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Robert Douglas Smith, 536 U.S. 856 (2002), the...
Strict Scrutiny Applied: First Amendment Violation in Judicial Election Speech Restrictions

Strict Scrutiny Applied: First Amendment Violation in Judicial Election Speech Restrictions

Date: Jun 28, 2002
Strict Scrutiny Applied: First Amendment Violation in Judicial Election Speech Restrictions Introduction In the landmark case Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. v. Suzanne White, Chairperson,...
HOPE v. PELZER: Establishing Clear Limitations on Qualified Immunity for Eighth Amendment Violations in Prison Punishments

HOPE v. PELZER: Establishing Clear Limitations on Qualified Immunity for Eighth Amendment Violations in Prison Punishments

Date: Jun 28, 2002
HOPE v. PELZER: Establishing Clear Limitations on Qualified Immunity for Eighth Amendment Violations in Prison Punishments Introduction HOPE v. PELZER, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), is a landmark decision by...
Upholding Suspicionless Drug Testing in School Extracurriculars: Board of Education of ISD No. 92 v. Lindsay Earls

Upholding Suspicionless Drug Testing in School Extracurriculars: Board of Education of ISD No. 92 v. Lindsay Earls

Date: Jun 28, 2002
Upholding Suspicionless Drug Testing in School Extracurriculars: Board of Education of ISD No. 92 v. Lindsay Earls Introduction In Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of...
Establishment Clause and School Choice: Comprehensive Commentary on Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Establishment Clause and School Choice: Comprehensive Commentary on Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Date: Jun 28, 2002
Establishment Clause and School Choice: Comprehensive Commentary on Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Introduction Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (536 U.S. 639, 2002) represents a landmark decision by the United...
Overruling Walton: Enhancing the Sixth Amendment Jury Trial Guarantee in Capital Sentencing

Overruling Walton: Enhancing the Sixth Amendment Jury Trial Guarantee in Capital Sentencing

Date: Jun 25, 2002
Overruling Walton: Enhancing the Sixth Amendment Jury Trial Guarantee in Capital Sentencing Introduction Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Ruiz v. United States: Limits on Pre-Plea Disclosure of Impeachment Information

Ruiz v. United States: Limits on Pre-Plea Disclosure of Impeachment Information

Date: Jun 25, 2002
Ruiz v. United States: Limits on Pre-Plea Disclosure of Impeachment Information Introduction United States v. Angela Ruiz is a landmark case adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The case...
BEK Construction Co. v. NLRB: Supreme Court Limits NLRB's Authority on Retaliatory Litigation

BEK Construction Co. v. NLRB: Supreme Court Limits NLRB's Authority on Retaliatory Litigation

Date: Jun 25, 2002
BEK Construction Co. v. NLRB: Supreme Court Limits NLRB's Authority on Retaliatory Litigation Introduction In BEK Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), the United...
Single-Offense Interpretation Affirmed for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A): Brandishing Firearm as Sentencing Factor

Single-Offense Interpretation Affirmed for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A): Brandishing Firearm as Sentencing Factor

Date: Jun 25, 2002
Single-Offense Interpretation Affirmed for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A): Brandishing Firearm as Sentencing Factor Introduction In the landmark case of William Joseph Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545...
Judicial Access and Predicate Causes: Insights from HARBURY v. DEUTCH

Judicial Access and Predicate Causes: Insights from HARBURY v. DEUTCH

Date: Jun 21, 2002
Judicial Access and Predicate Causes: Insights from HARBURY v. DEUTCH Introduction HARBURY v. DEUTCH, 536 U.S. 403 (2002), is a seminal United States Supreme Court case that addressed the intricacies...
FERPA's Limitations Under § 1983: Gonzaga University v. John Doe

FERPA's Limitations Under § 1983: Gonzaga University v. John Doe

Date: Jun 21, 2002
FERPA's Limitations Under § 1983: Gonzaga University v. John Doe Introduction Gonzaga University and Roberta S. League v. John Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court case...
Atkins v. Virginia: Prohibiting Capital Punishment for the Mentally Retarded Under the Eighth Amendment

Atkins v. Virginia: Prohibiting Capital Punishment for the Mentally Retarded Under the Eighth Amendment

Date: Jun 21, 2002
Atkins v. Virginia: Prohibiting Capital Punishment for the Mentally Retarded Under the Eighth Amendment Introduction Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), was a landmark decision by the United...
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