Log In
  • US
  • 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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • 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 Clarifies COBRA Eligibility: Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp.

Supreme Court Clarifies COBRA Eligibility: Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp.

Date: Jun 9, 1998
Supreme Court Clarifies COBRA Eligibility: Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp. Introduction In the landmark case of Geissal, Beneficiary and Representative of the Estate of Geissal, Deceased v. Moore...
UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL.: Clarifying Jurisdictional Boundaries Under Rule 60(b) and the Quiet Title Act

UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL.: Clarifying Jurisdictional Boundaries Under Rule 60(b) and the Quiet Title Act

Date: Jun 9, 1998
UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL.: Clarifying Jurisdictional Boundaries Under Rule 60(b) and the Quiet Title Act Introduction UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL., 524 U.S. 38 (1998), is a landmark...
Affirmation of Voter Standing Under FECA: Analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Akins et al.

Affirmation of Voter Standing Under FECA: Analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Akins et al.

Date: Jun 2, 1998
Affirmation of Voter Standing Under FECA: Analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Akins et al. Introduction The Supreme Court case Federal Election Commission v. Akins et al., 524 U.S. 11 (1998),...
Venue Determination in Money Laundering Cases: Insights from UNITED STATES v. CABRALES

Venue Determination in Money Laundering Cases: Insights from UNITED STATES v. CABRALES

Date: Jun 2, 1998
Venue Determination in Money Laundering Cases: Insights from UNITED STATES v. CABRALES Introduction UNITED STATES v. CABRALES (524 U.S. 1, 1998) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Limitations on Declaratory Judgments in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Calderon v. Ashmus

Limitations on Declaratory Judgments in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Calderon v. Ashmus

Date: May 27, 1998
Limitations on Declaratory Judgments in Federal Habeas Proceedings: Insights from Calderon v. Ashmus Introduction Arthur Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Troy A. Ashmus (523 U.S. 740, 1998) is a pivotal...
Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Commercial Activities: Insights from Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies

Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Commercial Activities: Insights from Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies

Date: May 27, 1998
Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Commercial Activities: Insights from Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies Introduction The landmark case Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.,...
Substantive Due Process in High-Speed Police Pursuits: County of Sacramento v. Philip Lewis Estate

Substantive Due Process in High-Speed Police Pursuits: County of Sacramento v. Philip Lewis Estate

Date: May 27, 1998
Substantive Due Process in High-Speed Police Pursuits: County of Sacramento v. Philip Lewis Estate Introduction In County of Sacramento v. Philip Lewis Estate, 523 U.S. 833 (1998), the United States...
New Jersey v. New York: Sovereignty Over Ellis Island Established

New Jersey v. New York: Sovereignty Over Ellis Island Established

Date: May 27, 1998
New Jersey v. New York: Sovereignty Over Ellis Island Established Introduction The case of State of New Jersey v. State of New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998), addressed a long-standing boundary dispute...
Agency-Fee Objectors Exempted from Mandatory Arbitration Exhaustion: ALPA v. Miller Commentary

Agency-Fee Objectors Exempted from Mandatory Arbitration Exhaustion: ALPA v. Miller Commentary

Date: May 27, 1998
Agency-Fee Objectors Exempted from Mandatory Arbitration Exhaustion: ALPA v. Miller Commentary Introduction Air Line Pilots Association, Petitioner v. Robert A. Miller et al., 523 U.S. 866 (1998),...
Affirming Non-Taxpayer Bar to Tax Refund Claims: MONTANA v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS

Affirming Non-Taxpayer Bar to Tax Refund Claims: MONTANA v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS

Date: May 19, 1998
Affirming Non-Taxpayer Bar to Tax Refund Claims: MONTANA v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS Introduction The Supreme Court case Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 523 U.S. 696 (1998), addresses the complex...
Bousley v. United States: Expanding Grounds for Collateral Attacks on Guilty Pleas

Bousley v. United States: Expanding Grounds for Collateral Attacks on Guilty Pleas

Date: May 19, 1998
Bousley v. United States: Expanding Grounds for Collateral Attacks on Guilty Pleas Introduction Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), is a landmark Supreme Court decision that addresses the...
MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL v. STEWART: Defining "Second or Successive" Habeas Applications under AEDPA

MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL v. STEWART: Defining "Second or Successive" Habeas Applications under AEDPA

Date: May 19, 1998
MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL v. STEWART: Defining "Second or Successive" Habeas Applications under AEDPA Introduction In MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL v. STEWART, 523 U.S. 637 (1998), the United States Supreme Court...
Ripeness Before Implementation: Supreme Court Limits Judicial Review of Forest Plans

Ripeness Before Implementation: Supreme Court Limits Judicial Review of Forest Plans

Date: May 19, 1998
Ripeness Before Implementation: Supreme Court Limits Judicial Review of Forest Plans Introduction Ohio Forestry Association, Inc. v. Sierra Club et al. (523 U.S. 726, 1998) is a pivotal United States...
Editorial Discretion in Public Broadcast Candidate Debates: Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes

Editorial Discretion in Public Broadcast Candidate Debates: Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes

Date: May 19, 1998
Editorial Discretion in Public Broadcast Candidate Debates: Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes Introduction In the landmark case Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Ralph...
Limitation of § 301(a) Jurisdiction in Collective Bargaining Agreement Challenges: The Textron Lycoming v. UAW Decision

Limitation of § 301(a) Jurisdiction in Collective Bargaining Agreement Challenges: The Textron Lycoming v. UAW Decision

Date: May 19, 1998
Limitation of § 301(a) Jurisdiction in Collective Bargaining Agreement Challenges: The Textron Lycoming v. UAW Decision Introduction Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, Avco Corp.,...
CRAWFORD-EL v. BRITTON: Reaffirming Plaintiff's Burden in §1983 Motivational Claims

CRAWFORD-EL v. BRITTON: Reaffirming Plaintiff's Burden in §1983 Motivational Claims

Date: May 5, 1998
CRAWFORD-EL v. BRITTON: Reaffirming Plaintiff's Burden in §1983 Motivational Claims Introduction CRAWFORD-EL v. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998), is a pivotal case decided by the United States Supreme...
Calderon v. Thompson: Upholding the Finality of Habeas Corpus Decisions

Calderon v. Thompson: Upholding the Finality of Habeas Corpus Decisions

Date: Apr 30, 1998
Calderon v. Thompson: Upholding the Finality of Habeas Corpus Decisions Introduction Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998), is a landmark Supreme Court decision that addresses the inherent powers...
Priority of Federal Tax Liens over State Judgment Liens: Insights from United States v. Estate of Romani et al.

Priority of Federal Tax Liens over State Judgment Liens: Insights from United States v. Estate of Romani et al.

Date: Apr 30, 1998
Priority of Federal Tax Liens over State Judgment Liens: Insights from United States v. Estate of Romani et al. Introduction United States v. Estate of Romani et al., 523 U.S. 517 (1998), is a...
Judge's Determination of Substance Type and Quantity in Drug Conspiracy Sentencing: Edwards v. United States

Judge's Determination of Substance Type and Quantity in Drug Conspiracy Sentencing: Edwards v. United States

Date: Apr 29, 1998
Judge's Determination of Substance Type and Quantity in Drug Conspiracy Sentencing: Edwards v. United States Introduction Edwards et al. v. United States (523 U.S. 511, 1998) is a pivotal Supreme...
Eleventh Amendment and In Rem Admiralty Jurisdiction: Insights from California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc.

Eleventh Amendment and In Rem Admiralty Jurisdiction: Insights from California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc.

Date: Apr 23, 1998
Eleventh Amendment and In Rem Admiralty Jurisdiction: Insights from California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc. Introduction California et al. v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., et al., 523 U.S. 491 (1998), is a...
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
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert