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

Supreme Court Upholds Hot-Deck Imputation in Census, Clarifying Distinctions from Sampling Methods

Supreme Court Upholds Hot-Deck Imputation in Census, Clarifying Distinctions from Sampling Methods

Date: Jun 21, 2002
Supreme Court Upholds Hot-Deck Imputation in Census, Clarifying Distinctions from Sampling Methods Introduction In UTAH, et al., APPELLANTS v. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, et al. ( 536...
Delegation of State Safety Regulatory Authority to Municipalities Under 49 U.S.C. §14501(c): Columbus v. Ours Garage

Delegation of State Safety Regulatory Authority to Municipalities Under 49 U.S.C. §14501(c): Columbus v. Ours Garage

Date: Jun 21, 2002
Delegation of State Safety Regulatory Authority to Municipalities Under 49 U.S.C. §14501(c): City of Columbus et al. v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, Inc., et al. Introduction City of Columbus et...
ERISA Non-Preemption of State HMO Act: Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

ERISA Non-Preemption of State HMO Act: Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

Date: Jun 21, 2002
ERISA Non-Preemption of State HMO Act: Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran Introduction In the landmark case of Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the intricate...
Limitation on Remedies under ADA §202 and Rehabilitation Act §504: Punitive Damages Unavailable

Limitation on Remedies under ADA §202 and Rehabilitation Act §504: Punitive Damages Unavailable

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Limitation on Remedies under ADA §202 and Rehabilitation Act §504: Punitive Damages Unavailable Introduction In the landmark case KAY BARNES, in her official capacity as member of the Board of Police...
Permit Requirements for Door-to-Door Advocacy Violate First Amendment Rights

Permit Requirements for Door-to-Door Advocacy Violate First Amendment Rights

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Permit Requirements for Door-to-Door Advocacy Violate First Amendment Rights Introduction In the landmark case of Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, decided on...
Authorization of IRS's Aggregate Estimation Method for FICA Tax Assessments

Authorization of IRS's Aggregate Estimation Method for FICA Tax Assessments

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Authorization of IRS's Aggregate Estimation Method for FICA Tax Assessments Introduction United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238 (2002), is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed...
Carey v. Saffold: Defining "Pending" in Federal Habeas Corpus Under AEDPA

Carey v. Saffold: Defining "Pending" in Federal Habeas Corpus Under AEDPA

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Carey v. Saffold: Defining "Pending" in Federal Habeas Corpus Under AEDPA Introduction Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that...
Mandatory Teague Analysis in Habeas Corpus Proceedings: BANKS v. HORN

Mandatory Teague Analysis in Habeas Corpus Proceedings: BANKS v. HORN

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Mandatory Teague Analysis in Habeas Corpus Proceedings: BANKS v. HORN Introduction BANKS v. HORN, 536 U.S. 266 (2002), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court case that addresses the procedural...
Voluntary Consent in Bus Searches: United States v. Drayton and Brown

Voluntary Consent in Bus Searches: United States v. Drayton and Brown

Date: Jun 18, 2002
Voluntary Consent in Bus Searches: United States v. Drayton and Brown Introduction In United States v. Drayton and Brown, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), the United States Supreme Court addressed the Fourth...
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.: Establishing Corporate Citizenship for Alienage Jurisdiction

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.: Establishing Corporate Citizenship for Alienage Jurisdiction

Date: Jun 11, 2002
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.: Establishing Corporate Citizenship for Alienage Jurisdiction Introduction The Supreme Court case JPMorgan Chase Bank, Petitioner v....
Clarifying Filing Periods for Title VII Claims: Differentiating Discrete Discrimination and Hostile Work Environments

Clarifying Filing Periods for Title VII Claims: Differentiating Discrete Discrimination and Hostile Work Environments

Date: Jun 11, 2002
Clarifying Filing Periods for Title VII Claims: Differentiating Discrete Discrimination and Hostile Work Environments Introduction NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. ABNER MORGAN, Jr., 536...
Affirming the EEOC's 'Direct Threat' Defense under the ADA: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal

Affirming the EEOC's 'Direct Threat' Defense under the ADA: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal

Date: Jun 11, 2002
Affirming the EEOC's 'Direct Threat' Defense under the ADA: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal Introduction In the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Mario Echazabal, decided on June 10, 2002, the...
McKune v. Lile: Upholding Rehabilitation Programs Without Compelling Self-Incrimination

McKune v. Lile: Upholding Rehabilitation Programs Without Compelling Self-Incrimination

Date: Jun 11, 2002
McKune v. Lile: Upholding Rehabilitation Programs Without Compelling Self-Incrimination Introduction In McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), the United States Supreme Court addressed the...
Devlin v. Scardelletti: Affirming the Right of Non-Named Class Members to Appeal Class Action Settlements

Devlin v. Scardelletti: Affirming the Right of Non-Named Class Members to Appeal Class Action Settlements

Date: Jun 11, 2002
Devlin v. Scardelletti: Affirming the Right of Non-Named Class Members to Appeal Class Action Settlements Introduction Devlin v. Scardelletti is a landmark 2002 decision by the United States Supreme...
U.S. Supreme Court Establishes Guidelines for Statute of Limitations in Repudiation of Government Contracts under the Tucker Act

U.S. Supreme Court Establishes Guidelines for Statute of Limitations in Repudiation of Government Contracts under the Tucker Act

Date: Jun 11, 2002
U.S. Supreme Court Establishes Guidelines for Statute of Limitations in Repudiation of Government Contracts under the Tucker Act Introduction Franconia Associates, et al. v. UNITED STATES, 536 U.S....
Broad Interpretation of "In Connection With" under §10(b): SEC v. Zandford

Broad Interpretation of "In Connection With" under §10(b): SEC v. Zandford

Date: Jun 4, 2002
Broad Interpretation of "In Connection With" under §10(b): SEC v. Zandford Introduction In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002), the United States Supreme Court...
Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Limited to Plaintiff's Claims: Analysis of Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems

Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Limited to Plaintiff's Claims: Analysis of Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems

Date: Jun 4, 2002
Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Limited to Plaintiff's Claims: Analysis of Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems Introduction In the landmark case of The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air...
STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON Affirmed as Governing Standard in Habeas Corpus Claims: Bell v. Cone

STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON Affirmed as Governing Standard in Habeas Corpus Claims: Bell v. Cone

Date: May 29, 2002
STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON Affirmed as Governing Standard in Habeas Corpus Claims: Bell v. Cone Introduction Ricky Bell, Warden, Petitioner v. Gary Bradford Cone (535 U.S. 685, 2002) is a pivotal...
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Co., Ltd.: Refining Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Co., Ltd.: Refining Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents

Date: May 29, 2002
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Co., Ltd., et al. (535 U.S. 722) Introduction In the landmark case of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Co., Ltd., et al., the United States Supreme Court...
Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Review of Contingent-Fee Agreements Under 42 U.S.C. §406(b)

Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Review of Contingent-Fee Agreements Under 42 U.S.C. §406(b)

Date: May 29, 2002
Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Review of Contingent-Fee Agreements Under 42 U.S.C. §406(b) Introduction GARY E. GISBRECHT, BARBARA A. MILLER, NANCYSANDINE, and DONALD L. ANDERSON v. JO ANNE B....
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