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

Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity Cannot Immediately Appeal Summary Judgment on Fact-Based Issues: Johnson v. Jones

Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity Cannot Immediately Appeal Summary Judgment on Fact-Based Issues: Johnson v. Jones

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity Cannot Immediately Appeal Summary Judgment on Fact-Based Issues: Johnson v. Jones Introduction In the landmark decision of Tyson Johnson, et al., Petitioners...
Strict Scrutiny for All Racial Classifications: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena Commentary

Strict Scrutiny for All Racial Classifications: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena Commentary

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Strict Scrutiny for All Racial Classifications: Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena Commentary Introduction Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), is a landmark...
Milwaukee v. National Gypsum: Affirming Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Admiralty Collision Cases

Milwaukee v. National Gypsum: Affirming Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Admiralty Collision Cases

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Milwaukee v. National Gypsum: Affirming Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Admiralty Collision Cases Introduction The case of City of Milwaukee v. Cement Division, National Gypsum Co., et al. (515...
Reaffirming Brillhart: Discretionary Standards for Declaratory Judgments in Parallel State Proceedings

Reaffirming Brillhart: Discretionary Standards for Declaratory Judgments in Parallel State Proceedings

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Reaffirming Brillhart: Discretionary Standards for Declaratory Judgments in Parallel State Proceedings Introduction Leslie Wilton, etc., Petitioners v. Seven Falls Company et al., 515 U.S. 277...
Invalid Appointments Do Not Confer De Facto Validity: Insights from Ryder v. United States

Invalid Appointments Do Not Confer De Facto Validity: Insights from Ryder v. United States

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Invalid Appointments Do Not Confer De Facto Validity: Insights from Ryder v. United States Introduction Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995), is a significant Supreme Court decision that...
Modification of Disability Awards Based on Wage-Earning Capacity under LHWCA §22

Modification of Disability Awards Based on Wage-Earning Capacity under LHWCA §22

Date: Jun 13, 1995
Modification of Disability Awards Based on Wage-Earning Capacity under LHWCA §22 Introduction The case of Metropolitan Stevedore Company v. John Rambo, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12,...
Reno v. Koray: Defining 'Official Detention' Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

Reno v. Koray: Defining 'Official Detention' Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

Date: Jun 6, 1995
Reno v. Koray: Defining 'Official Detention' Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) Introduction Reno v. Koray is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, decided on June 5, 1995. The case...
NEBRASKA v. WYOMING and Colorado: Reinforcing Strict Amendments in Original Jurisdiction Water Disputes

NEBRASKA v. WYOMING and Colorado: Reinforcing Strict Amendments in Original Jurisdiction Water Disputes

Date: May 31, 1995
NEBRASKA v. WYOMING and Colorado: Reinforcing Strict Amendments in Original Jurisdiction Water Disputes Introduction NEBRASKA v. WYOMING and Colorado, 515 U.S. 1 (1995), is a pivotal U.S. Supreme...
Continued Custody Under Consecutive Sentences: Analysis of Garrotte v. Fordice (1995)

Continued Custody Under Consecutive Sentences: Analysis of Garrotte v. Fordice (1995)

Date: May 31, 1995
Continued Custody Under Consecutive Sentences: Analysis of Garrotte v. Fordice (1995) Introduction Garrotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (1995), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that...
State Law Governs Limitations Period for WARN Civil Actions

State Law Governs Limitations Period for WARN Civil Actions

Date: May 31, 1995
State Law Governs Limitations Period for WARN Civil Actions Introduction The case NORTH STAR STEEL COMPANY, PETITIONER v. CHARLES A. THOMAS et al. and CROWN CORK SEAL CO., INC., PETITIONER v. UNITED...
Independent Judicial Review of Arbitration Agreements: Insights from First Options v. Kaplan

Independent Judicial Review of Arbitration Agreements: Insights from First Options v. Kaplan

Date: May 23, 1995
Independent Judicial Review of Arbitration Agreements: Insights from First Options v. Kaplan Introduction The case of First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, et al., decided by the U.S. Supreme...
U.S. Term Limits and the Exclusivity of Constitutional Qualifications

U.S. Term Limits and the Exclusivity of Constitutional Qualifications

Date: May 23, 1995
U.S. Term Limits and the Exclusivity of Constitutional Qualifications Introduction In U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al. (514 U.S. 779, 1995), the United States Supreme Court addressed...
Knock and Announce: A Fourth Amendment Inquiry Established in Wilson v. Arkansas

Knock and Announce: A Fourth Amendment Inquiry Established in Wilson v. Arkansas

Date: May 23, 1995
Knock and Announce: A Fourth Amendment Inquiry Established in Wilson v. Arkansas Introduction Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that...
KANSAS v. COLORADO (1995): Upholding Interstate Compact Enforcement and Defining ‘Usable’ Water Depletions

KANSAS v. COLORADO (1995): Upholding Interstate Compact Enforcement and Defining ‘Usable’ Water Depletions

Date: May 16, 1995
KANSAS v. COLORADO (514 U.S. 673): Upholding Interstate Compact Enforcement and Defining ‘Usable’ Water Depletions Introduction KANSAS v. COLORADO, decided on May 15, 1995, by the United States...
Purkett v. Elem: Clarifying the Boundaries of Batson Claims in Jury Selection

Purkett v. Elem: Clarifying the Boundaries of Batson Claims in Jury Selection

Date: May 16, 1995
Purkett v. Elem: Clarifying the Boundaries of Batson Claims in Jury Selection Introduction Purkett v. Elem (514 U.S. 765, 1995) is a seminal United States Supreme Court decision that addresses the...
FHA Exemption Under § 3607(b)(1) Excludes Family Composition Rules in Single-Family Zoning

FHA Exemption Under § 3607(b)(1) Excludes Family Composition Rules in Single-Family Zoning

Date: May 16, 1995
FHA Exemption Under § 3607(b)(1) Excludes Family Composition Rules in Single-Family Zoning Introduction City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., et al., 514 U.S. 725 (1995), is a landmark case...
Supremacy Clause Prevents Retroactive Application of Tolling Statutes: REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. v. HYDE

Supremacy Clause Prevents Retroactive Application of Tolling Statutes: REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO. v. HYDE

Date: May 16, 1995
Supremacy Clause Prevents Retroactive Application of Tolling Statutes: REYNOLDSVILLE CASKET CO., ET AL. v. HYDE Introduction Reynoldsville Casket Co., et al. v. Hyde is a significant United States...
Excluding Judicial Proceedings from 18 U.S.C. §1001: A Comprehensive Analysis of Hubbard v. United States

Excluding Judicial Proceedings from 18 U.S.C. §1001: A Comprehensive Analysis of Hubbard v. United States

Date: May 16, 1995
Excluding Judicial Proceedings from 18 U.S.C. §1001: A Comprehensive Analysis of Hubbard v. United States Introduction Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (1995), is a pivotal Supreme Court...
United States v. Lopez: Defining the Boundaries of the Commerce Clause

United States v. Lopez: Defining the Boundaries of the Commerce Clause

Date: Apr 27, 1995
United States v. Lopez: Defining the Boundaries of the Commerce Clause Introduction United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that marked a significant limitation on...
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Preemption: Hospital Surcharges in New York Not Preempted Under §514(a)

Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Preemption: Hospital Surcharges in New York Not Preempted Under §514(a)

Date: Apr 27, 1995
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Preemption: Hospital Surcharges in New York Not Preempted Under §514(a) Introduction In the landmark decision of New York State Conference of Blue Cross Blue Shield...
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