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

Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al.: Expanding Maritime Employment Coverage under the LHWCA

Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al.: Expanding Maritime Employment Coverage under the LHWCA

Date: Nov 29, 1989
Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al.: Expanding Maritime Employment Coverage under the LHWCA Introduction Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al. (493 U.S. 40, 1989) is a landmark...
Sperry Corp. Reinforces Constitutionality of Congressional User Fee Deductions in International Claims Arbitration

Sperry Corp. Reinforces Constitutionality of Congressional User Fee Deductions in International Claims Arbitration

Date: Nov 29, 1989
Sperry Corp. Reinforces Constitutionality of Congressional User Fee Deductions in International Claims Arbitration Introduction United States v. Sperry Corp. ET AL. (493 U.S. 52) is a landmark...
Mandatory Compliance with RCRA Citizen Suit Notice Requirements Established in HALLSTROM v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY

Mandatory Compliance with RCRA Citizen Suit Notice Requirements Established in HALLSTROM v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY

Date: Nov 8, 1989
Mandatory Compliance with RCRA Citizen Suit Notice Requirements Established in HALLSTROM v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY Introduction Hallstrom et ux. v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (1989), is a landmark U.S....
Direct Action Proviso Does Not Apply to Insurer-Initiated Federal Workers' Compensation Suits

Direct Action Proviso Does Not Apply to Insurer-Initiated Federal Workers' Compensation Suits

Date: Nov 8, 1989
Direct Action Proviso Does Not Apply to Insurer-Initiated Federal Workers' Compensation Suits Introduction NORTHBROOK NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. BREWER (493 U.S. 6) is a pivotal decision by the United...
Wilkerson v. Texas: Reinforcing Standards Against Racial Bias in Jury Selection

Wilkerson v. Texas: Reinforcing Standards Against Racial Bias in Jury Selection

Date: Oct 18, 1989
Wilkerson v. Texas: Reinforcing Standards Against Racial Bias in Jury Selection Introduction Wilkerson v. Texas, 493 U.S. 924 (1989), is a significant case in the realm of constitutional law,...
Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari in Schiro v. Indiana: Implications on Double Jeopardy and Death Penalty Review

Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari in Schiro v. Indiana: Implications on Double Jeopardy and Death Penalty Review

Date: Oct 17, 1989
Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari in Schiro v. Indiana: Implications on Double Jeopardy and Death Penalty Review Introduction Schiro v. Indiana (493 U.S. 910, 1989) presents a critical examination...
RICO Liability Without Profit-Making Element: Insights from Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc.

RICO Liability Without Profit-Making Element: Insights from Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc.

Date: Oct 11, 1989
RICO Liability Without Profit-Making Element: Insights from Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc. Introduction The case of Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc. (493 U.S....
Divestiture as an Injunctive Remedy in Private Antitrust Actions: Insights from California v. American Stores Company

Divestiture as an Injunctive Remedy in Private Antitrust Actions: Insights from California v. American Stores Company

Date: Aug 23, 1989
Divestiture as an Injunctive Remedy in Private Antitrust Actions: Insights from California v. American Stores Company Introduction California v. American Stores Company, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989), is a...
County of Allegheny v. ACLU: Defining the Boundaries of Religious Displays under the Establishment Clause

County of Allegheny v. ACLU: Defining the Boundaries of Religious Displays under the Establishment Clause

Date: Jul 4, 1989
County of Allegheny v. ACLU: Defining the Boundaries of Religious Displays under the Establishment Clause Introduction County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh...
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: Supreme Court Affirms Missouri's Limits on Public Facilities and Employees in Abortion Regulation

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: Supreme Court Affirms Missouri's Limits on Public Facilities and Employees in Abortion Regulation

Date: Jul 4, 1989
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: Supreme Court Affirms Missouri's Limits on Public Facilities and Employees in Abortion Regulation Introduction Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492...
Protection of Sixth Amendment Rights in Sentencing: Powell v. Texas

Protection of Sixth Amendment Rights in Sentencing: Powell v. Texas

Date: Jul 4, 1989
Protection of Sixth Amendment Rights in Sentencing: Powell v. Texas Introduction Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680 (1989), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that significantly...
Yakima Indian Nation v. Brendale: Defining Tribal Zoning Authority over Non-Indian Fee Lands

Yakima Indian Nation v. Brendale: Defining Tribal Zoning Authority over Non-Indian Fee Lands

Date: Jun 30, 1989
Yakima Indian Nation v. Brendale: Defining Tribal Zoning Authority over Non-Indian Fee Lands Introduction Yakima Indian Nation v. Brendale (492 U.S. 408, 1989) is a pivotal United States Supreme...
SUNY v. Fox: Establishing the 'Reasonable Fit' Standard for Commercial Speech Restrictions

SUNY v. Fox: Establishing the 'Reasonable Fit' Standard for Commercial Speech Restrictions

Date: Jun 30, 1989
SUNY v. Fox: Establishing the 'Reasonable Fit' Standard for Commercial Speech Restrictions Introduction In Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox et al., 492 U.S. 469 (1989),...
Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause Does Not Apply to Private Punitive Damages

Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause Does Not Apply to Private Punitive Damages

Date: Jun 27, 1989
Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause Does Not Apply to Private Punitive Damages Introduction Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc., et al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al., 492 U.S. 257...
Execution of Mentally Retarded Individuals: A Comprehensive Analysis of PENRY v. LYNAUGH

Execution of Mentally Retarded Individuals: A Comprehensive Analysis of PENRY v. LYNAUGH

Date: Jun 27, 1989
Execution of Mentally Retarded Individuals: A Comprehensive Analysis of PENRY v. LYNAUGH Introduction PENRY v. LYNAUGH, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), is a landmark case in the realm of capital punishment and...
Duckworth v. Eagan: Affirming the Adequacy of Miranda Warnings with Conditional Counsel Appointment

Duckworth v. Eagan: Affirming the Adequacy of Miranda Warnings with Conditional Counsel Appointment

Date: Jun 27, 1989
Duckworth v. Eagan: Affirming the Adequacy of Miranda Warnings with Conditional Counsel Appointment Introduction Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), is a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision that...
Clarifying RICO's Pattern of Racketeering: Relationship and Continuity Suffice Without Multiple Schemes

Clarifying RICO's Pattern of Racketeering: Relationship and Continuity Suffice Without Multiple Schemes

Date: Jun 27, 1989
Clarifying RICO's Pattern of Racketeering: Relationship and Continuity Suffice Without Multiple Schemes Introduction The United States Supreme Court case H. J. Inc. et al. v. Northwestern Bell...
Stanford v. Kentucky: Capital Punishment for Juveniles Reaffirmed

Stanford v. Kentucky: Capital Punishment for Juveniles Reaffirmed

Date: Jun 27, 1989
Stanford v. Kentucky: Capital Punishment for Juveniles Reaffirmed Introduction Stanford v. Kentucky (492 U.S. 361, 1989) is a pivotal Supreme Court decision addressing the constitutionality of...
Preservation of States' Eleventh Amendment Immunity under Bankruptcy Code §106(c): Analysis of Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance

Preservation of States' Eleventh Amendment Immunity under Bankruptcy Code §106(c): Analysis of Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance

Date: Jun 24, 1989
Preservation of States' Eleventh Amendment Immunity under Bankruptcy Code §106(c): Analysis of Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance Introduction Hoffman, Trustee v. Connecticut...
Seventh Amendment Protects Jury Trial Rights in Fraudulent Conveyance Suits Overriding Statutory Designation

Seventh Amendment Protects Jury Trial Rights in Fraudulent Conveyance Suits Overriding Statutory Designation

Date: Jun 24, 1989
Seventh Amendment Protects Jury Trial Rights in Fraudulent Conveyance Suits Overriding Statutory Designation Introduction Granfinanciera, S. A., et al. v. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of...
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