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

Binding Authority of Sentencing Guidelines Commentary Established in Stinson v. United States

Binding Authority of Sentencing Guidelines Commentary Established in Stinson v. United States

Date: May 4, 1993
Binding Authority of Sentencing Guidelines Commentary Established in Stinson v. United States Introduction Terry Lynn Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), is a landmark decision by the...
MOREAU v. KLEVENHAGEN: Defining Compensatory Time in Public Sector under FLSA

MOREAU v. KLEVENHAGEN: Defining Compensatory Time in Public Sector under FLSA

Date: May 4, 1993
MOREAU v. KLEVENHAGEN: Defining Compensatory Time in Public Sector under FLSA Introduction Moreau et al. v. Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, et al. is a seminal 1993 U.S. Supreme Court...
McCarran Amendment and Federal Sovereign Immunity: Insights from United States v. Idaho

McCarran Amendment and Federal Sovereign Immunity: Insights from United States v. Idaho

Date: May 4, 1993
McCarran Amendment and Federal Sovereign Immunity: Insights from United States v. Idaho Introduction The case of United States v. Idaho, Ex Rel. Director, Idaho Department of Water Resources,...
No Coconspirator Exception: Supreme Court Clarifies Fourth Amendment Standing in United States v. Padilla

No Coconspirator Exception: Supreme Court Clarifies Fourth Amendment Standing in United States v. Padilla

Date: May 4, 1993
No Coconspirator Exception: Supreme Court Clarifies Fourth Amendment Standing in United States v. Padilla Introduction The landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Padilla et al. (508 U.S. 77,...
Establishing Objective Baselessness in Antitrust Claims: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Establishing Objective Baselessness in Antitrust Claims: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Date: May 4, 1993
Establishing Objective Baselessness in Antitrust Claims: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Introduction The case of Professional Real Estate Investors,...
Limiting Automatic Rent Adjustments in Section 8 Housing: Insights from Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group

Limiting Automatic Rent Adjustments in Section 8 Housing: Insights from Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group

Date: May 4, 1993
Limiting Automatic Rent Adjustments in Section 8 Housing: Insights from Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group Introduction Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Alpine Ridge Group...
United States v. Olano and Gray: Clarifying the "Plain Error" Standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)

United States v. Olano and Gray: Clarifying the "Plain Error" Standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)

Date: Apr 27, 1993
United States v. Olano and Gray: Clarifying the "Plain Error" Standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) Introduction United States v. Guy W. Olano, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray, AJ, 507...
Florida CPA Solicitation Ban Violates First Amendment Protections

Florida CPA Solicitation Ban Violates First Amendment Protections

Date: Apr 27, 1993
Florida CPA Solicitation Ban Violates First Amendment Protections Introduction In the landmark case Edenfield v. Fane, the United States Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Florida's...
Federal Common Law Limitations on Tax Recovery: Insights from United States v. California

Federal Common Law Limitations on Tax Recovery: Insights from United States v. California

Date: Apr 27, 1993
Federal Common Law Limitations on Tax Recovery: Insights from United States v. California Introduction United States v. California, 507 U.S. 746 (1993), represents a pivotal moment in the interplay...
Kotteakos Standard Applied to Collateral Review of Doyle Errors in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Kotteakos Standard Applied to Collateral Review of Doyle Errors in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Date: Apr 22, 1993
Kotteakos Standard Applied to Collateral Review of Doyle Errors in Habeas Corpus Proceedings Introduction Todd A. Brecht v. Gordon A. Abrahamson is a landmark 1993 decision by the United States...
Federal Preemption of State Negligence Claims in Railroad Safety: An Analysis of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Lizzie Beatrice Easterwood

Federal Preemption of State Negligence Claims in Railroad Safety: An Analysis of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Lizzie Beatrice Easterwood

Date: Apr 22, 1993
Federal Preemption of State Negligence Claims in Railroad Safety: An Analysis of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Lizzie Beatrice Easterwood Introduction CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Lizzie Beatrice...
Miranda Claims Remain Open to Federal Habeas Review Despite STONE v. POWELL

Miranda Claims Remain Open to Federal Habeas Review Despite STONE v. POWELL

Date: Apr 22, 1993
Miranda Claims Remain Open to Federal Habeas Review Despite STONE v. POWELL Introduction Pamela Withrow v. Robert Allen Williams, Jr. is a landmark Supreme Court decision delivered on April 21, 1993....
Enforcement and Modification of Interstate Water Decrees: An Analysis of NEBRASKA v. WYOMING et al.

Enforcement and Modification of Interstate Water Decrees: An Analysis of NEBRASKA v. WYOMING et al.

Date: Apr 21, 1993
Enforcement and Modification of Interstate Water Decrees: An Analysis of NEBRASKA v. WYOMING et al. Introduction NEBRASKA v. WYOMING et al. (507 U.S. 584, 1993) is a landmark decision by the United...
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins: Clarifying ADEA Liability and Willfulness Standards

Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins: Clarifying ADEA Liability and Willfulness Standards

Date: Apr 21, 1993
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins: Clarifying ADEA Liability and Willfulness Standards Introduction Hazen Paper Co., et al. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision...
Distinguishing Goodwill from Depreciable Intangible Assets: Analysis of Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States

Distinguishing Goodwill from Depreciable Intangible Assets: Analysis of Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States

Date: Apr 21, 1993
Distinguishing Goodwill from Depreciable Intangible Assets: Analysis of Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States Introduction The Supreme Court case Newark Morning Ledger Co., as Successor to The...
Debt Collection Act of 1982 Does Not Abrogate Federal Common Law Right to Collect Prejudgment Interest from States

Debt Collection Act of 1982 Does Not Abrogate Federal Common Law Right to Collect Prejudgment Interest from States

Date: Apr 6, 1993
Debt Collection Act of 1982 Does Not Abrogate Federal Common Law Right to Collect Prejudgment Interest from States Introduction United States et al. v. Texas et al., 507 U.S. 529 (1993), is a pivotal...
Conroy v. Aniskoff: Supreme Court Upholds Unconditional Tolling of Redemption Period for Military Personnel

Conroy v. Aniskoff: Supreme Court Upholds Unconditional Tolling of Redemption Period for Military Personnel

Date: Apr 1, 1993
Conroy v. Aniskoff: Supreme Court Upholds Unconditional Tolling of Redemption Period for Military Personnel Introduction The landmark case of Conroy v. Aniskoff addressed a critical intersection...
Defining 'Utter Disregard': The Supreme Court's Affirmation in Arave v. Creech

Defining 'Utter Disregard': The Supreme Court's Affirmation in Arave v. Creech

Date: Mar 31, 1993
Defining 'Utter Disregard': The Supreme Court's Affirmation in Arave v. Creech Introduction Arave, Warden v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1993), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the...
Determining Escheat Rights: Delaware v. New York and the Affirmation of Corporate Domicile as a Secondary Rule

Determining Escheat Rights: Delaware v. New York and the Affirmation of Corporate Domicile as a Secondary Rule

Date: Mar 31, 1993
Determining Escheat Rights: Delaware v. New York and the Affirmation of Corporate Domicile as a Secondary Rule Introduction The United States Supreme Court case Delaware v. New York, 507 U.S. 490...
Excusable Neglect in Bankruptcy Proceedings: Analysis of Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates

Excusable Neglect in Bankruptcy Proceedings: Analysis of Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates

Date: Mar 25, 1993
Excusable Neglect in Bankruptcy Proceedings: Analysis of Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership et al. Introduction Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick...
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