Log In
  • US
  • 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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • 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

Federal Taxation of State Bonds: Upholding TEFRA § 310(b)(1) in South Carolina v. Baker

Federal Taxation of State Bonds: Upholding TEFRA § 310(b)(1) in South Carolina v. Baker

Date: Apr 21, 1988
Federal Taxation of State Bonds: Upholding TEFRA § 310(b)(1) in South Carolina v. Baker Introduction In South Carolina v. Baker, Secretary of the Treasury (485 U.S. 505, 1988), the United States...
Private Express Statutes: Limiting State Universities' Internal Mail Access to Labor Unions

Private Express Statutes: Limiting State Universities' Internal Mail Access to Labor Unions

Date: Apr 21, 1988
Private Express Statutes: Limiting State Universities' Internal Mail Access to Labor Unions Introduction Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board et al. (485 U.S....
Judicial Clarification on Willful Misconduct in Veterans' Benefits: Traynor v. Turnage

Judicial Clarification on Willful Misconduct in Veterans' Benefits: Traynor v. Turnage

Date: Apr 21, 1988
Judicial Clarification on Willful Misconduct in Veterans' Benefits: Traynor v. Turnage Introduction Traynor v. Turnage, Administrator, Veterans' Administration, et al. is a pivotal Supreme Court case...
Puerto Rico Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp.: Affirming State Regulatory Authority Post-Federal Decontrol

Puerto Rico Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp.: Affirming State Regulatory Authority Post-Federal Decontrol

Date: Apr 20, 1988
Puerto Rico Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp.: Affirming State Regulatory Authority Post-Federal Decontrol Introduction Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs et al. v. Isla Petroleum...
Enhancing Due Process Protections for Creditors in Probate Proceedings: The Tulsa Professional Collection Services Decision

Enhancing Due Process Protections for Creditors in Probate Proceedings: The Tulsa Professional Collection Services Decision

Date: Apr 20, 1988
Enhancing Due Process Protections for Creditors in Probate Proceedings: The Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope Decision Introduction Case: Tulsa Professional Collection Services,...
Free Exercise Clause and Government Land Use: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Free Exercise Clause and Government Land Use: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Date: Apr 20, 1988
Free Exercise Clause and Government Land Use: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association Introduction Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective...
Gardeberg v. Jenkins: Clarifying Notice Requirements in AFDC Program Implementation

Gardeberg v. Jenkins: Clarifying Notice Requirements in AFDC Program Implementation

Date: Apr 20, 1988
Gardeberg v. Jenkins: Clarifying Notice Requirements in AFDC Program Implementation Introduction Gardeberg, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415 (1988),...
Due Process and Mental Incapacity in Capital Sentences: Insights from Leslie LOWENFIELD v. BUTLER

Due Process and Mental Incapacity in Capital Sentences: Insights from Leslie LOWENFIELD v. BUTLER

Date: Apr 14, 1988
Due Process and Mental Incapacity in Capital Sentences: Insights from Leslie LOWENFIELD v. BUTLER Introduction The case of Leslie Lowenfield v. Robert Hilton Butler, Warden (485 U.S. 995) presents a...
Expanding Board Jurisdiction Over Regulatory Challenges: Bethesda Hospital v. Bowen

Expanding Board Jurisdiction Over Regulatory Challenges: Bethesda Hospital v. Bowen

Date: Apr 5, 1988
Expanding Board Jurisdiction Over Regulatory Challenges: Bethesda Hospital Association v. Bowen Introduction Bethesda Hospital Association et al. v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 485...
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Aberdeen Proving Ground: Establishing the Exclusive Use of §7117(b) for Compelling Need Determinations

Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Aberdeen Proving Ground: Establishing the Exclusive Use of §7117(b) for Compelling Need Determinations

Date: Apr 5, 1988
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Aberdeen Proving Ground: Establishing the Exclusive Use of §7117(b) for Compelling Need Determinations Introduction Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Aberdeen...
Enforcing Interstate Water Obligations: The Landmark Decision in TEXAS v. NEW MEXICO

Enforcing Interstate Water Obligations: The Landmark Decision in TEXAS v. NEW MEXICO

Date: Mar 29, 1988
Enforcing Interstate Water Obligations: The Landmark Decision in TEXAS v. NEW MEXICO Introduction TEXAS v. NEW MEXICO, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1988, addresses a significant...
Supreme Court Clarifies Taxation of Project Notes: United States v. Wells Fargo Bank (1988)

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxation of Project Notes: United States v. Wells Fargo Bank (1988)

Date: Mar 24, 1988
Supreme Court Clarifies Taxation of Project Notes: United States v. Wells Fargo Bank (1988) Introduction United States v. Wells Fargo Bank et al., 485 U.S. 351 (1988), is a seminal case in U.S. tax...
Supreme Court Upholds Welfare Restrictions During Strikes in Lyng v. UAW

Supreme Court Upholds Welfare Restrictions During Strikes in Lyng v. UAW

Date: Mar 24, 1988
Supreme Court Upholds Welfare Restrictions During Strikes in Lyng v. UAW Introduction In Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement...
Strict Scrutiny Applied to Content-Based Restrictions on Political Speech: Boos v. Barry

Strict Scrutiny Applied to Content-Based Restrictions on Political Speech: Boos v. Barry

Date: Mar 23, 1988
Strict Scrutiny Applied to Content-Based Restrictions on Political Speech: Boos v. Barry Introduction Boos et al. v. Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al. (485 U.S. 312) is a pivotal U.S....
Supremacy of Federal Regulation in Natural Gas Securities Issuance: Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.

Supremacy of Federal Regulation in Natural Gas Securities Issuance: Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.

Date: Mar 23, 1988
Supremacy of Federal Regulation in Natural Gas Securities Issuance: Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co. Introduction Schneidewind et al. v. ANR Pipeline Co. et al., 485 U.S. 293 (1988), presents a...
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.: Overruling the Enelow-Ettelson Doctrine and Its Implications

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.: Overruling the Enelow-Ettelson Doctrine and Its Implications

Date: Mar 23, 1988
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.: Overruling the Enelow-Ettelson Doctrine and Its Implications Introduction Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988), is a...
Establishing Genuine Agency in Tax Law: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bollinger (1988)

Establishing Genuine Agency in Tax Law: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bollinger (1988)

Date: Mar 23, 1988
Establishing Genuine Agency in Tax Law: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bollinger (1988) Introduction Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bollinger et al., 485 U.S. 340 (1988), is a pivotal...
BUCHANAN v. STANSHIPS, INC.: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 59(e) in Appeal Timeliness

BUCHANAN v. STANSHIPS, INC.: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 59(e) in Appeal Timeliness

Date: Mar 22, 1988
BUCHANAN v. STANSHIPS, INC.: Clarifying the Scope of Rule 59(e) in Appeal Timeliness Introduction BUCHANAN v. STANSHIPS, INC. is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision rendered on March 21,...
Reaffirmation of the Absolute Priority Rule in Bankruptcy: Limits on Equity Retention through Labor Contributions

Reaffirmation of the Absolute Priority Rule in Bankruptcy: Limits on Equity Retention through Labor Contributions

Date: Mar 8, 1988
Reaffirmation of the Absolute Priority Rule in Bankruptcy: Limits on Equity Retention through Labor Contributions Introduction Norwest Bank Worthington et al. v. Ahlers et ux. is a landmark 1988...
BASIC INC. v. LEVINSON: Redefining Materiality and Validating Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption under Rule 10b-5

BASIC INC. v. LEVINSON: Redefining Materiality and Validating Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption under Rule 10b-5

Date: Mar 8, 1988
BASIC INC. v. LEVINSON: Redefining Materiality and Validating Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption under Rule 10b-5 Introduction Basic Inc. et al. v. Levinson et al., 485 U.S. 224 (1988), is a landmark...
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
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert