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

Reed v. United Transportation Union: State Residual Personal Injury Statutes Govern LMRDA §101(a)(2) Claims

Reed v. United Transportation Union: State Residual Personal Injury Statutes Govern LMRDA §101(a)(2) Claims

Date: Jan 12, 1989
Reed v. United Transportation Union: State Residual Personal Injury Statutes Govern LMRDA §101(a)(2) Claims Introduction Reed v. United Transportation Union ET AL., 488 U.S. 319 (1989), is a pivotal...
PERRY v. LEEKE: Defining the Boundaries of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel During Defendant Testimony

PERRY v. LEEKE: Defining the Boundaries of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel During Defendant Testimony

Date: Jan 11, 1989
PERRY v. LEEKE: Defining the Boundaries of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel During Defendant Testimony Introduction PERRY v. LEEKE, 488 U.S. 272 (1989), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that...
Residual State Statutes of Limitations Applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims: Owens v. Okure

Residual State Statutes of Limitations Applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims: Owens v. Okure

Date: Jan 11, 1989
Application of Residual State Statutes of Limitations to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims: Owens v. Okure Introduction Owens et al. v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989) is a landmark decision by the United States...
Goldberg v. Sweet: Upholding Illinois' Telecommunications Tax Under the Commerce Clause

Goldberg v. Sweet: Upholding Illinois' Telecommunications Tax Under the Commerce Clause

Date: Jan 11, 1989
Goldberg v. Sweet: Upholding Illinois' Telecommunications Tax Under the Commerce Clause Introduction The Supreme Court case Goldberg et al. v. Sweet, Director, Illinois Department of Revenue, et al....
Broad Admissibility of Evaluative Conclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) – Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey

Broad Admissibility of Evaluative Conclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) – Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey

Date: Dec 13, 1988
Broad Admissibility of Evaluative Conclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) – Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey Introduction Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey et al. (488 U.S. 153, 1988)...
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital: Limits on Retroactive Rulemaking Authority

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital: Limits on Retroactive Rulemaking Authority

Date: Dec 13, 1988
Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Georgetown University Hospital ET AL. (488 U.S. 204) U.S. Supreme Court Decision, December 12, 1988 Introduction The landmark case of Bowen, Secretary...
Enhancing Confrontation Rights: Insights from OLDEN v. KENTUCKY

Enhancing Confrontation Rights: Insights from OLDEN v. KENTUCKY

Date: Dec 13, 1988
Enhancing Confrontation Rights: Insights from OLDEN v. KENTUCKY Introduction OLDEN v. KENTUCKY, 488 U.S. 227 (1988), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that significantly impacts the...
NCAA v. Tarkanian: Defining State Action in Private Associations

NCAA v. Tarkanian: Defining State Action in Private Associations

Date: Dec 13, 1988
NCAA v. Tarkanian: Defining State Action in Private Associations Introduction NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION v. TARKANIAN, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 12, 1988, addresses...
Limits on Agency Discretion: Upholding Non-Restrictive Criteria under the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act

Limits on Agency Discretion: Upholding Non-Restrictive Criteria under the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act

Date: Dec 7, 1988
Limits on Agency Discretion: Upholding Non-Restrictive Criteria under the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act Introduction In the landmark case of Pittston Coal Group et al. v. Sebben et al., 488 U.S. 105...
Agency Removal Powers: CARLUCCI v. DOE Affirming NSA's For-Cause Dismissal Authority

Agency Removal Powers: CARLUCCI v. DOE Affirming NSA's For-Cause Dismissal Authority

Date: Dec 7, 1988
Agency Removal Powers: Carlucci v. Doe Affirms NSA's For-Cause Dismissal Authority Introduction Carlucci, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Doe (488 U.S. 93, 1988) is a landmark Supreme Court decision...
PENSON v. OHIO: Ensuring Adequate Appellate Representation for Indigent Defendants

PENSON v. OHIO: Ensuring Adequate Appellate Representation for Indigent Defendants

Date: Nov 30, 1988
PENSON v. OHIO: Ensuring Adequate Appellate Representation for Indigent Defendants Introduction PENSON v. OHIO (488 U.S. 75) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that reaffirms...
Due Process and the Bad Faith Requirement in Evidence Preservation: Arizona v. Youngblood

Due Process and the Bad Faith Requirement in Evidence Preservation: Arizona v. Youngblood

Date: Nov 30, 1988
Due Process and the Bad Faith Requirement in Evidence Preservation: Arizona v. Youngblood Introduction Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Double Jeopardy and Sentencing Enhancements: Analyzing Lockhart v. Nelson

Double Jeopardy and Sentencing Enhancements: Analyzing Lockhart v. Nelson

Date: Nov 15, 1988
Double Jeopardy and Sentencing Enhancements: Analyzing Lockhart v. Nelson Introduction The United States Supreme Court case Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Nelson, 488 U.S....
Preemption of State Taxation under OCSLA: Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Department of Revenue

Preemption of State Taxation under OCSLA: Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Department of Revenue

Date: Nov 9, 1988
Preemption of State Taxation under OCSLA: Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Department of Revenue Introduction Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Department of Revenue (488 U.S. 19, 1988) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court...
Pennsylvania v. Bruder: Clarifying Miranda Requirements During Routine Traffic Stops

Pennsylvania v. Bruder: Clarifying Miranda Requirements During Routine Traffic Stops

Date: Nov 1, 1988
Pennsylvania v. Bruder: Clarifying Miranda Requirements During Routine Traffic Stops Introduction Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9 (1988), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that delineates the...
RHODES v. STEWART: Defining Prevailing Party Status for Attorney's Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

RHODES v. STEWART: Defining Prevailing Party Status for Attorney's Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Date: Oct 18, 1988
RHODES v. STEWART: Defining Prevailing Party Status for Attorney's Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Introduction RHODES v. STEWART, 488 U.S. 1 (1988), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision...
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in IAD Violation Habeas Corpus Cases

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in IAD Violation Habeas Corpus Cases

Date: Oct 18, 1988
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in IAD Violation Habeas Corpus Cases Introduction In the landmark case Douglas Vincent Metheny v. M.C. Hamby, 488 U.S. 913 (1988), the United States Supreme Court...
Enforcing Consent Decrees: Insights from Spallone v. United States

Enforcing Consent Decrees: Insights from Spallone v. United States

Date: Sep 2, 1988
Enforcing Consent Decrees: Insights from Spallone v. United States Introduction Henry G. Spallone v. United States, 487 U.S. 1251 (1988), addresses the contentious issue of enforcing federal court...
Adolescent Family Life Act and the Establishment Clause: A Supreme Court Analysis

Adolescent Family Life Act and the Establishment Clause: A Supreme Court Analysis

Date: Jun 30, 1988
Adolescent Family Life Act and the Establishment Clause: A Supreme Court Analysis Introduction The case of Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Kendrick et al., 487 U.S. 589 (1988),...
United States v. Kozminski et al.: Defining Involuntary Servitude under §241 and §1584

United States v. Kozminski et al.: Defining Involuntary Servitude under §241 and §1584

Date: Jun 30, 1988
United States v. Kozminski et al.: Defining Involuntary Servitude under §241 and §1584 Introduction United States v. Kozminski et al. is a landmark 1988 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that...
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