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

Minnesota's Fusion Candidacy Ban: Balancing Associational Rights and Election Regulation

Minnesota's Fusion Candidacy Ban: Balancing Associational Rights and Election Regulation

Date: Apr 29, 1997
Minnesota's Fusion Candidacy Ban: Balancing Associational Rights and Election Regulation Introduction Timmons, Acting Director, Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue, et al., v....
Richards v. Wisconsin: Reinforcing the Fourth Amendment's Knock-and-Announce Requirement

Richards v. Wisconsin: Reinforcing the Fourth Amendment's Knock-and-Announce Requirement

Date: Apr 29, 1997
Richards v. Wisconsin: Reinforcing the Fourth Amendment's Knock-and-Announce Requirement Introduction Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997), is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the...
Limiting Tribal Jurisdiction Over Nonmember Civil Claims on State Highways Through Reservations

Limiting Tribal Jurisdiction Over Nonmember Civil Claims on State Highways Through Reservations

Date: Apr 29, 1997
Limiting Tribal Jurisdiction Over Nonmember Civil Claims on State Highways Through Reservations Introduction In the landmark case of Strate, Associate Tribal Judge, Tribal Court of the Three...
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act Does Not Confer Individual Enforceable Rights Under Section 1983

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act Does Not Confer Individual Enforceable Rights Under Section 1983

Date: Apr 22, 1997
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act Does Not Confer Individual Enforceable Rights Under Section 1983 Introduction In Blessing, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Freestone et al.,...
Limitations on Special Needs Justification for Suspicionless Drug Testing in Political Candidacy

Limitations on Special Needs Justification for Suspicionless Drug Testing in Political Candidacy

Date: Apr 16, 1997
Limitations on Special Needs Justification for Suspicionless Drug Testing in Political Candidacy Introduction CHANDLER v. MILLER, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), is a landmark decision by the United States...
Mississippi v. Fordice: Upholding § 5 VRA Preclearance for Significant Voter Registration Changes

Mississippi v. Fordice: Upholding § 5 VRA Preclearance for Significant Voter Registration Changes

Date: Apr 1, 1997
Mississippi v. Fordice: Upholding § 5 VRA Preclearance for Significant Voter Registration Changes Introduction Young et al. v. Fordice et al. (520 U.S. 273, 1997) is a pivotal United States Supreme...
United States v. Lanier: Clarifying the Standard of Notice under 18 U.S.C. §242

United States v. Lanier: Clarifying the Standard of Notice under 18 U.S.C. §242

Date: Apr 1, 1997
United States v. Lanier: Clarifying the Standard of Notice under 18 U.S.C. §242 Introduction United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), addresses the crucial issue of the standard required to...
Must-Carry Provisions Upholding Broadcast Diversity in TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. FCC

Must-Carry Provisions Upholding Broadcast Diversity in TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. FCC

Date: Apr 1, 1997
Must-Carry Provisions Upholding Broadcast Diversity in TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. FCC Introduction Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (520 U.S. 180, 1997)...
Supreme Court Upholds Montana's Parental Notice of Abortion Act: Clarifying Judicial Bypass Standards

Supreme Court Upholds Montana's Parental Notice of Abortion Act: Clarifying Judicial Bypass Standards

Date: Apr 1, 1997
Supreme Court Upholds Montana's Parental Notice of Abortion Act: Clarifying Judicial Bypass Standards Introduction LAMBERT, GALLATIN COUNTY ATTORNEY v. WICKLUND ET AL. (520 U.S. 292) is a landmark...
Expanding Judicial Standing under the Endangered Species Act: Bennett v. Spear Commentary

Expanding Judicial Standing under the Endangered Species Act: Bennett v. Spear Commentary

Date: Mar 20, 1997
Expanding Judicial Standing under the Endangered Species Act: Bennett v. Spear Commentary 1. Introduction Bennett et al. v. Spear et al., 520 U.S. 154 (1997), is a landmark United States Supreme...
Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert: Affirmation of Marital and Charitable Deduction Valuation Principles

Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert: Affirmation of Marital and Charitable Deduction Valuation Principles

Date: Mar 19, 1997
Commissioner v. Estate of Hubert: Affirmation of Marital and Charitable Deduction Valuation Principles Introduction In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Hubert, Deceased, 520 U.S. 93...
Young v. Harper: Establishing Preparole Equivalence to Parole under Due Process Protections

Young v. Harper: Establishing Preparole Equivalence to Parole under Due Process Protections

Date: Mar 19, 1997
Young v. Harper: Establishing Preparole Equivalence to Parole under Due Process Protections Introduction The Supreme Court case Young et al. v. Harper, decided on March 18, 1997, addresses critical...
Vacatur of Ninth Circuit's Judgment in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

Vacatur of Ninth Circuit's Judgment in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

Date: Mar 4, 1997
Vacatur of Ninth Circuit's Judgment in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona Introduction Arizonans for Official English et al. v. Arizona et al., 520 U.S. 43 (1997), is a significant Supreme...
Strict Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c): Federal Firearm Sentences Must Run Consecutively with All Other Imprisonment Terms

Strict Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c): Federal Firearm Sentences Must Run Consecutively with All Other Imprisonment Terms

Date: Mar 4, 1997
Strict Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c): Federal Firearm Sentences Must Run Consecutively with All Other Imprisonment Terms Introduction United States v. Gonzales et al., 520 U.S. 1 (1997) is a...
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.: Upholding the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.: Upholding the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law

Date: Mar 4, 1997
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.: Upholding the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law Introduction In the landmark case of Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co....
Due Process Requirements for Class-Action Certification: Insights from ADAMS v. ROBERTSON

Due Process Requirements for Class-Action Certification: Insights from ADAMS v. ROBERTSON

Date: Mar 4, 1997
Due Process Requirements for Class-Action Certification: Insights from ADAMS v. ROBERTSON Introduction Adams et al. v. Robertson et al. (520 U.S. 83) is a significant Supreme Court decision that...
Materiality Not an Element in 18 U.S.C. §1014 False Statement Crimes: Insights from United States v. Wells et al.

Materiality Not an Element in 18 U.S.C. §1014 False Statement Crimes: Insights from United States v. Wells et al.

Date: Feb 27, 1997
Materiality Not an Element in 18 U.S.C. §1014 False Statement Crimes: Insights from United States v. Wells et al. Introduction United States v. Wells et al., 519 U.S. 482 (1997), is a pivotal Supreme...
Dunn v. CFTC: Supreme Court Affirms Exemption of Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Options

Dunn v. CFTC: Supreme Court Affirms Exemption of Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Options

Date: Feb 26, 1997
Dunn v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Affirming the Exemption of Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Options Introduction Dunn et al. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission et al. (519 U.S. 465,...
Extension of Mimms Rule to Passengers: Maryland v. Wilson

Extension of Mimms Rule to Passengers: Maryland v. Wilson

Date: Feb 20, 1997
Extension of Mimms Rule to Passengers: Maryland v. Wilson Introduction Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addresses the scope of...
Salary-Basis Test for Public-Sector Employees Under FLSA: A Comprehensive Analysis of *AUER v. ROBBINS*

Salary-Basis Test for Public-Sector Employees Under FLSA: A Comprehensive Analysis of *AUER v. ROBBINS*

Date: Feb 20, 1997
Salary-Basis Test for Public-Sector Employees Under FLSA: A Comprehensive Analysis of AUER v. ROBBINS Introduction AUER v. ROBBINS, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a landmark decision by the United States...
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