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

Hernandez v. Commissioner of IRS: Establishing Quid Pro Quo Standards for Charitable Deductions under IRC §170

Hernandez v. Commissioner of IRS: Establishing Quid Pro Quo Standards for Charitable Deductions under IRC §170

Date: Jun 6, 1989
Hernandez v. Commissioner of IRS: Establishing Quid Pro Quo Standards for Charitable Deductions under IRC §170 Introduction Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), is a...
Federal Supremacy in State Mineral Leasing: ASARCO v. Kadish (1989)

Federal Supremacy in State Mineral Leasing: ASARCO v. Kadish (1989)

Date: May 31, 1989
Federal Supremacy in State Mineral Leasing: ASARCO v. Kadish (1989) Introduction ASARCO Inc. et al. v. Kadish et al. is a landmark 1989 decision by the United States Supreme Court that reaffirmed the...
Mansell v. Mansell: Clarifying the Scope of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act

Mansell v. Mansell: Clarifying the Scope of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act

Date: May 31, 1989
Mansell v. Mansell: Clarifying the Scope of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act Introduction Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that...
Non-Appealability of Interlocutory Denials of Forum-Selection Clause Enforcements in Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser

Non-Appealability of Interlocutory Denials of Forum-Selection Clause Enforcements in Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser

Date: May 23, 1989
Non-Appealability of Interlocutory Denials of Forum-Selection Clause Enforcements in Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser Introduction Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser et al. is a seminal United States Supreme...
State Tolling of Limitations Periods in Inmate §1983 Actions: Precedent from HARDIN v. STRAUB

State Tolling of Limitations Periods in Inmate §1983 Actions: Precedent from HARDIN v. STRAUB

Date: May 23, 1989
State Tolling of Limitations Periods in Inmate §1983 Actions: Precedent from HARDIN v. STRAUB Introduction The United States Supreme Court case HARDIN v. STRAUB, decided on May 22, 1989, addresses...
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Under FTCA: FINLEY v. UNITED STATES

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Under FTCA: FINLEY v. UNITED STATES

Date: May 23, 1989
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Under FTCA: FINLEY v. UNITED STATES Introduction FINLEY v. UNITED STATES, 490 U.S. 545 (1989), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court addressing the...
Mandatory Admissibility of Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachments in Civil Litigation

Mandatory Admissibility of Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachments in Civil Litigation

Date: May 23, 1989
Mandatory Admissibility of Prior Felony Convictions for Impeachments in Civil Litigation Introduction Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504 (1989), is a landmark Supreme Court case that...
Double Jeopardy Protections in Civil Penalties: Analyzing UNITED STATES v. HALPER

Double Jeopardy Protections in Civil Penalties: Analyzing UNITED STATES v. HALPER

Date: May 16, 1989
Double Jeopardy Protections in Civil Penalties: Analyzing UNITED STATES v. HALPER Introduction The landmark Supreme Court case UNITED STATES v. HALPER, decided on May 15, 1989, addresses the...
Defining "In Custody" for Habeas Corpus: Analysis of Maleng v. Cook

Defining "In Custody" for Habeas Corpus: Analysis of Maleng v. Cook

Date: May 16, 1989
Defining "In Custody" for Habeas Corpus: Analysis of Maleng v. Cook Introduction Maleng, King County Prosecuting Attorney, et al. v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), is a pivotal United States Supreme...
The Role of Mandatory Language in Establishing Liberty Interests: Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson

The Role of Mandatory Language in Establishing Liberty Interests: Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson

Date: May 16, 1989
The Role of Mandatory Language in Establishing Liberty Interests: Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson Introduction In Kentucky Department of Corrections et al. v. Thompson et al., 490 U.S. 454...
Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements under the Securities Act: The Rodriguez de Quijas Decision

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements under the Securities Act: The Rodriguez de Quijas Decision

Date: May 16, 1989
Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements under the Securities Act: The Rodriguez de Quijas Decision Introduction The case of Rodriguez de Quijas et al. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., decided by...
Turner Standard Applied to Incoming Prison Publications: Thornburgh v. Abbott

Turner Standard Applied to Incoming Prison Publications: Thornburgh v. Abbott

Date: May 16, 1989
Turner Standard Applied to Incoming Prison Publications: Thornburgh v. Abbott Introduction Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. Abbott et al. (490 U.S. 401, 1989) is a pivotal...
Graham v. Connor: Defining the Fourth Amendment Standard for Excessive Force Claims

Graham v. Connor: Defining the Fourth Amendment Standard for Excessive Force Claims

Date: May 16, 1989
Graham v. Connor: Defining the Fourth Amendment Standard for Excessive Force Claims Introduction Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that...
Limitations on Mandatory Appointments of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d): Mallard v. U.S. Supreme Court

Limitations on Mandatory Appointments of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d): Mallard v. U.S. Supreme Court

Date: May 2, 1989
Limitations on Mandatory Appointments of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d): Mallard v. United States Supreme Court Introduction Background: In Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern...
NEPA Compliance: Standard of Review and Supplemental EIS in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

NEPA Compliance: Standard of Review and Supplemental EIS in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

Date: May 2, 1989
NEPA Compliance: Standard of Review and Supplemental EIS in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council Introduction Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al. v. Oregon Natural Resources Council et al., 490...
Appellate Jurisdiction under the Back Pay Act: Insights from Hambsch v. United States

Appellate Jurisdiction under the Back Pay Act: Insights from Hambsch v. United States

Date: May 2, 1989
Appellate Jurisdiction under the Back Pay Act: Insights from Hambsch v. United States Introduction Anthony R. Hambsch, III v. United States, 490 U.S. 1054 (1989) is a significant case that, although...
NEITZKE ET AL. v. WILLIAMS: Clarifying the Distinction between Frivolousness and Failure to State a Claim in In Forma Pauperis Proceedings

NEITZKE ET AL. v. WILLIAMS: Clarifying the Distinction between Frivolousness and Failure to State a Claim in In Forma Pauperis Proceedings

Date: May 2, 1989
NEITZKE ET AL. v. WILLIAMS: Clarifying the Distinction between Frivolousness and Failure to State a Claim in In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Introduction The United States Supreme Court case Neitzke et...
Limiting NEPA's Scope: No Substantive Mitigation Duties Established in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Limiting NEPA's Scope: No Substantive Mitigation Duties Established in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Date: May 2, 1989
Limiting NEPA's Scope: No Substantive Mitigation Duties Established in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council Introduction Robertson, Chief of the Forest Service, et al. v. Methow Valley...
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: Establishing Preponderance of Evidence for Defendants in Mixed-Motives Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: Establishing Preponderance of Evidence for Defendants in Mixed-Motives Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases

Date: May 2, 1989
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: Establishing Preponderance of Evidence for Defendants in Mixed-Motives Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases Introduction Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228...
Delegation of Taxing Power: Supreme Court Upholds COBRA §7005 in Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.

Delegation of Taxing Power: Supreme Court Upholds COBRA §7005 in Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.

Date: Apr 26, 1989
Delegation of Taxing Power: Supreme Court Upholds COBRA §7005 in Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co. Introduction In Skinner, Secretary of Transportation v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., the 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