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

Whren v. United States: Objective Reasonableness in Traffic Stops Affirmed

Whren v. United States: Objective Reasonableness in Traffic Stops Affirmed

Date: Jun 11, 1996
Whren v. United States: Objective Reasonableness in Traffic Stops Affirmed Introduction Whren et al. v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Export Clause Prohibits Nondiscriminatory Federal Taxes on Goods in Export Transit – United States v. IBM

Export Clause Prohibits Nondiscriminatory Federal Taxes on Goods in Export Transit – United States v. IBM

Date: Jun 11, 1996
Export Clause Prohibits Nondiscriminatory Federal Taxes on Goods in Export Transit – United States v. IBM Introduction In United States v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), 517 U.S....
Superseding Cause and Proximate Causation in Admiralty: Exxon Co. v. Sofec

Superseding Cause and Proximate Causation in Admiralty: Exxon Co. v. Sofec

Date: Jun 11, 1996
Superseding Cause and Proximate Causation in Admiralty: Exxon Co. v. Sofec Introduction Exxon Co., U.S.A., et al. v. Sofec, Inc., et al., 517 U.S. 830 (1996), is a landmark decision by the United...
LOCKHEED CORP. v. SPINK: Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Fiduciary Standards and Non-Retroactive Application of OBRA Amendments

LOCKHEED CORP. v. SPINK: Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Fiduciary Standards and Non-Retroactive Application of OBRA Amendments

Date: Jun 11, 1996
LOCKHEED CORP. v. SPINK: Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Fiduciary Standards and Non-Retroactive Application of OBRA Amendments Introduction Lockheed Corporation et al. v. Spink is a landmark 1996...
Res Judicata and Due Process: Richards v. Jefferson County Establishes Protection for Absent Taxpayers

Res Judicata and Due Process: Richards v. Jefferson County Establishes Protection for Absent Taxpayers

Date: Jun 11, 1996
Res Judicata and Due Process: Richards v. Jefferson County Establishes Protection for Absent Taxpayers Introduction Richards et al. v. Jefferson County, Alabama, et al. (517 U.S. 793, 1996) is a...
Delegation of Authority in Military Capital Sentencing: A Commentary on Loving v. United States

Delegation of Authority in Military Capital Sentencing: A Commentary on Loving v. United States

Date: Jun 4, 1996
Delegation of Authority in Military Capital Sentencing: A Commentary on Loving v. United States Introduction Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that...
Supreme Court Upholds Deference to Comptroller's Interpretation of 'Interest' Under 12 U.S.C. §85: Inclusion of Late-Payment Fees

Supreme Court Upholds Deference to Comptroller's Interpretation of 'Interest' Under 12 U.S.C. §85: Inclusion of Late-Payment Fees

Date: Jun 4, 1996
Supreme Court Upholds Deference to Comptroller's Interpretation of 'Interest' Under 12 U.S.C. §85: Inclusion of Late-Payment Fees Introduction SMILEY v. CITIBANK (South Dakota), N.A. is a landmark...
Employer's Pre-Acceptance Good-Faith Doubts Do Not Justify Withdrawal from Collective Bargaining Agreement: Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB

Employer's Pre-Acceptance Good-Faith Doubts Do Not Justify Withdrawal from Collective Bargaining Agreement: Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB

Date: Jun 4, 1996
Employer's Pre-Acceptance Good-Faith Doubts Do Not Justify Withdrawal from Collective Bargaining Agreement: Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB Introduction The landmark case Auciello Iron Works, Inc....
Supreme Court Rules Burford Abstention Not Applicable to Damages Claims and Affirms Appealability of Remand Orders

Supreme Court Rules Burford Abstention Not Applicable to Damages Claims and Affirms Appealability of Remand Orders

Date: Jun 4, 1996
Supreme Court Rules Burford Abstention Not Applicable to Damages Claims and Affirms Appealability of Remand Orders Introduction In the landmark case of Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co. (517 U.S....
Ornelas v. United States: Establishing De Novo Appellate Review for Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

Ornelas v. United States: Establishing De Novo Appellate Review for Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

Date: May 29, 1996
Ornelas v. United States: Establishing De Novo Appellate Review for Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause Introduction Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), is a landmark Supreme Court...
Supremacy of Federal Arbitration Act Over State Arbitration Notice Requirements

Supremacy of Federal Arbitration Act Over State Arbitration Notice Requirements

Date: May 21, 1996
Supremacy of Federal Arbitration Act Over State Arbitration Notice Requirements Introduction In the landmark case of Doctor's Associates, Inc. et al. v. Casarotto et ux., the United States Supreme...
Rule 4 Supersedes "Forthwith" Service Requirement in Admiralty Suits: Henderson v. United States

Rule 4 Supersedes "Forthwith" Service Requirement in Admiralty Suits: Henderson v. United States

Date: May 21, 1996
Rule 4 Supersedes "Forthwith" Service Requirement in Admiralty Suits: Henderson v. United States Introduction Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court...
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE: Supreme Court Sets Standards for Excessive Punitive Damages under Due Process

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE: Supreme Court Sets Standards for Excessive Punitive Damages under Due Process

Date: May 21, 1996
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE: Supreme Court Sets Standards for Excessive Punitive Damages under Due Process Introduction The case of BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE, decided by the United...
Romer v. Evans: A Landmark Decision on Equal Protection for LGBTQ+ Individuals

Romer v. Evans: A Landmark Decision on Equal Protection for LGBTQ+ Individuals

Date: May 21, 1996
Romer v. Evans: A Landmark Decision on Equal Protection for LGBTQ+ Individuals Introduction Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996), stands as a pivotal Supreme Court...
Equitable Subordination Limits in Bankruptcy: Insights from United States v. Noland

Equitable Subordination Limits in Bankruptcy: Insights from United States v. Noland

Date: May 14, 1996
Equitable Subordination Limits in Bankruptcy: Insights from United States v. Noland Introduction United States v. Noland, Trustee for Debtor First Truck Lines, Inc. is a landmark Supreme Court...
Threshold for Discovery in Selective Prosecution Claims Established in United States v. Armstrong et al.

Threshold for Discovery in Selective Prosecution Claims Established in United States v. Armstrong et al.

Date: May 14, 1996
Threshold for Discovery in Selective Prosecution Claims Established in United States v. Armstrong et al. Introduction United States v. Armstrong et al. (517 U.S. 456) is a landmark Supreme Court...
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island: Strengthening First Amendment Protections for Commercial Speech

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island: Strengthening First Amendment Protections for Commercial Speech

Date: May 14, 1996
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island: Strengthening First Amendment Protections for Commercial Speech Introduction The landmark case of 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, decided by the U.S. Supreme...
United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Brown Shoe Co.: Redefining Associational Standing Under the WARN Act

United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Brown Shoe Co.: Redefining Associational Standing Under the WARN Act

Date: May 14, 1996
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Shoe Co.: Redefining Associational Standing Under the WARN Act Introduction In United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown...
Strict Adherence to Federal Rule 29(c): Insights from Carlisle v. United States

Strict Adherence to Federal Rule 29(c): Insights from Carlisle v. United States

Date: Apr 30, 1996
Strict Adherence to Federal Rule 29(c): Insights from Carlisle v. United States Introduction Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision addressing the...
Markman v. Westview Instruments: Judicial Construction of Patent Claims

Markman v. Westview Instruments: Judicial Construction of Patent Claims

Date: Apr 24, 1996
Markman v. Westview Instruments: Judicial Construction of Patent Claims Introduction MARKMAN v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that...
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