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

Evans v. Warden Muncy: Reevaluating Future Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing

Evans v. Warden Muncy: Reevaluating Future Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing

Date: Oct 18, 1990
Evans v. Warden Muncy: Reevaluating Future Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing Introduction Evans v. Warden Muncy (498 U.S. 927) is a pivotal case decided by the United States Supreme Court on...
Unified Consideration of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Paul Gregory House v. Tennessee

Unified Consideration of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Paul Gregory House v. Tennessee

Date: Oct 16, 1990
Unified Consideration of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Paul Gregory House v. Tennessee Introduction The case of Paul Gregory House v. Tennessee, 498...
Double Jeopardy and Reprosecution under Different Statutory Formulations: Analysis of William Frank Parker v. Arkansas

Double Jeopardy and Reprosecution under Different Statutory Formulations: Analysis of William Frank Parker v. Arkansas

Date: Oct 2, 1990
Double Jeopardy and Reprosecution under Different Statutory Formulations: Analysis of William Frank Parker v. Arkansas Introduction The case of William Frank Parker v. Arkansas presents a significant...
Enhanced Rights for Indigent Defendants to Access Diagnostic Testing in Insanity Defense Cases

Enhanced Rights for Indigent Defendants to Access Diagnostic Testing in Insanity Defense Cases

Date: Jun 29, 1990
Enhanced Rights for Indigent Defendants to Access Diagnostic Testing in Insanity Defense Cases Introduction The case of Robert Wayne Vickers v. Arizona (497 U.S. 1033) presents a critical examination...
Establishing Retroactivity of Constitutional Tax Rulings: Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Carlyl

Establishing Retroactivity of Constitutional Tax Rulings: Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Carlyl

Date: Jun 29, 1990
Establishing Retroactivity of Constitutional Tax Rulings: Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Carlyl Introduction Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Carlyl, Tax Commissioner of West Virginia (497 U.S. 916, 1990) is a pivotal...
Supreme Court Upholds Narrowly Defined 'Especially Heinous, Cruel, or Depraved' Aggravating Circumstance in Death Penalty Cases

Supreme Court Upholds Narrowly Defined 'Especially Heinous, Cruel, or Depraved' Aggravating Circumstance in Death Penalty Cases

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Supreme Court Upholds Narrowly Defined 'Especially Heinous, Cruel, or Depraved' Aggravating Circumstance in Death Penalty Cases Introduction In the landmark case Lewis, Director, Arizona Department...
Standing under the APA: Insights from Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Standing under the APA: Insights from Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Standing under the APA: Insights from Lujan Secretary of the Interior v. National Wildlife Federation Introduction Lujan Secretary of the Interior v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871...
Regulating Solicitation on Postal Sidewalks: First Amendment Boundaries Established in United States v. Kokinda

Regulating Solicitation on Postal Sidewalks: First Amendment Boundaries Established in United States v. Kokinda

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Regulating Solicitation on Postal Sidewalks: First Amendment Boundaries Established in United States v. Kokinda Introduction United States v. Kokinda et al., 497 U.S. 720 (1990), is a pivotal Supreme...
Upholding Minority Ownership Policies in Broadcasting: Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC

Upholding Minority Ownership Policies in Broadcasting: Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Upholding Minority Ownership Policies in Broadcasting: Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC Introduction Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a landmark United States...
Walton v. Arizona: Upholding Judge-Led Capital Sentencing under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments

Walton v. Arizona: Upholding Judge-Led Capital Sentencing under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Walton v. Arizona: Upholding Judge-Led Capital Sentencing under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments Introduction Walton v. Arizona (497 U.S. 639, 1990) is a significant United States Supreme Court...
Confrontation Clause Reinforced: Residual Hearsay Exception Disallowed in Child Testimony Cases

Confrontation Clause Reinforced: Residual Hearsay Exception Disallowed in Child Testimony Cases

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Confrontation Clause Reinforced: Residual Hearsay Exception Disallowed in Child Testimony Cases Introduction Idaho v. Wright (497 U.S. 805), decided on June 27, 1990, marks a significant decision by...
Maryland v. Craig: Establishing Procedural Safeguards for Child Witness Testimony

Maryland v. Craig: Establishing Procedural Safeguards for Child Witness Testimony

Date: Jun 28, 1990
Maryland v. Craig: Establishing Procedural Safeguards for Child Witness Testimony Introduction Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that...
Procedural Adequacy in Competency Hearings: Insights from Hamilton v. Texas

Procedural Adequacy in Competency Hearings: Insights from Hamilton v. Texas

Date: Jun 27, 1990
Procedural Adequacy in Competency Hearings: Insights from Hamilton v. Texas Introduction Hamilton v. Texas, 497 U.S. 1016 (1990), is a pivotal case addressing the procedural standards required to...
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: Establishing the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: Establishing the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment

Date: Jun 26, 1990
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: Establishing the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment Introduction Cruzan v. Director, Missouri...
Enhanced Scope of Maritime Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1333(1): Sisson v. Ruby et al.

Enhanced Scope of Maritime Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1333(1): Sisson v. Ruby et al.

Date: Jun 26, 1990
Enhanced Scope of Maritime Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1333(1): Sisson v. Ruby et al. Introduction Sisson v. Ruby et al., 497 U.S. 358 (1990), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
GEORGIA v. SOUTH CAROLINA (1990): Defining Interstate Boundaries and Sovereignty Over Riverine Islands

GEORGIA v. SOUTH CAROLINA (1990): Defining Interstate Boundaries and Sovereignty Over Riverine Islands

Date: Jun 26, 1990
GEORGIA v. SOUTH CAROLINA (1990): Defining Interstate Boundaries and Sovereignty Over Riverine Islands Court: U.S. Supreme Court Date: June 25, 1990 Citation: 497 U.S. 376 Introduction GEORGIA v....
Clarifying Miranda Protections for Inmates: Insights from Bradley v. Ohio

Clarifying Miranda Protections for Inmates: Insights from Bradley v. Ohio

Date: Jun 26, 1990
Clarifying Miranda Protections for Inmates: Insights from Bradley v. Ohio Introduction William J. Bradley v. Ohio (497 U.S. 1011, 1990) presents a critical examination of the application of Miranda...
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health: Supreme Court Upholds Parental Notice Requirements for Minor's Abortions

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health: Supreme Court Upholds Parental Notice Requirements for Minor's Abortions

Date: Jun 26, 1990
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health: Supreme Court Upholds Parental Notice Requirements for Minor's Abortions Introduction Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health et al. is a landmark...
Unconstitutional Two-Parent Notification in Minor Abortion Laws: Hodgson v. Minnesota

Unconstitutional Two-Parent Notification in Minor Abortion Laws: Hodgson v. Minnesota

Date: Jun 26, 1990
Unconstitutional Two-Parent Notification in Minor Abortion Laws: Hodgson v. Minnesota Introduction Hodgson et al. v. Minnesota et al. (497 U.S. 417, 1990) is a pivotal decision by the United States...
Extending Elrod and Branti: Supreme Court Prohibits Patronage Hiring and Promotion Based on Political Affiliation

Extending Elrod and Branti: Supreme Court Prohibits Patronage Hiring and Promotion Based on Political Affiliation

Date: Jun 22, 1990
Extending Elrod and Branti: Supreme Court Prohibits Patronage Hiring and Promotion Based on Political Affiliation Introduction Rutan et al. v. Republican Party of Illinois et al. is a landmark United...
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