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

Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories: Upholding Local Ordinances in Plasma Regulation

Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories: Upholding Local Ordinances in Plasma Regulation

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories: Upholding Local Ordinances in Plasma Regulation Introduction In the landmark case Hillsborough County, Florida, et al. v. Automated Medical...
Establishing Clear Boundaries for Municipal Liability under § 1983: Insights from CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. TUTTLE

Establishing Clear Boundaries for Municipal Liability under § 1983: Insights from CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. TUTTLE

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Establishing Clear Boundaries for Municipal Liability under § 1983: Insights from CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. TUTTLE Introduction In the landmark decision CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. TUTTLE, INDIVIDUALLY,...
Double Jeopardy Implications in Continuing Criminal Enterprise: Garrett v. United States

Double Jeopardy Implications in Continuing Criminal Enterprise: Garrett v. United States

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Double Jeopardy Implications in Continuing Criminal Enterprise: Garrett v. United States Introduction Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985), is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United States...
Federal Supremacy in Taxation of Tribal Royalty Interests: Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe (471 U.S. 759)

Federal Supremacy in Taxation of Tribal Royalty Interests: Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe (471 U.S. 759)

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Federal Supremacy in Taxation of Tribal Royalty Interests: Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe (471 U.S. 759) Introduction The Supreme Court case Montana et al. v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759...
Expansion of Commerce Clause Authority: Russell v. United States

Expansion of Commerce Clause Authority: Russell v. United States

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Expansion of Commerce Clause Authority: Russell v. United States Introduction Russell v. United States (471 U.S. 858, 1985) is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the applicability of 18...
Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies Required Before Federal Intervention: Analysis of NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COS. ET AL. v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS ET AL.

Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies Required Before Federal Intervention: Analysis of NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COS. ET AL. v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS ET AL.

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies Required Before Federal Intervention: Analysis of NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INSURANCE COS. ET AL. v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS ET AL. Introduction In NATIONAL FARMERS UNION...
ERISA Saving Clause Upholds State Mandated Mental Health Benefits in Insurance Policies

ERISA Saving Clause Upholds State Mandated Mental Health Benefits in Insurance Policies

Date: Jun 4, 1985
ERISA Saving Clause Upholds State Mandated Mental Health Benefits in Insurance Policies Introduction Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts (1985) is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case that...
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. William J. Sheffield: Implications for State vs. Federal Regulation of Tanker Operations

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. William J. Sheffield: Implications for State vs. Federal Regulation of Tanker Operations

Date: Jun 4, 1985
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. William J. Sheffield: Implications for State vs. Federal Regulation of Tanker Operations Introduction The case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v....
Gould v. Ruefenacht: Affirming Stock as a Security under Federal Securities Laws

Gould v. Ruefenacht: Affirming Stock as a Security under Federal Securities Laws

Date: May 29, 1985
Gould v. Ruefenacht: Affirming Stock as a Security under Federal Securities Laws Introduction Gould v. Ruefenacht, 471 U.S. 701 (1985), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that...
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel: Affirming Disclosure Requirements in Attorney Advertising

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel: Affirming Disclosure Requirements in Attorney Advertising

Date: May 29, 1985
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio: Affirming Disclosure Requirements in Attorney Advertising Introduction Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the...
Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Federal Securities Laws to Complete Stock Sales: LANDRETH TIMBER CO. v. LANDRETH et al.

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Federal Securities Laws to Complete Stock Sales: LANDRETH TIMBER CO. v. LANDRETH et al.

Date: May 29, 1985
Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Federal Securities Laws to Complete Stock Sales Introduction LANDRETH TIMBER CO. v. LANDRETH et al., 471 U.S. 681 (1985) is a pivotal United States Supreme...
Right of First Publication Supersedes Fair Use: Harper Row v. Nation Enterprises

Right of First Publication Supersedes Fair Use: Harper Row v. Nation Enterprises

Date: May 21, 1985
Right of First Publication Supersedes Fair Use: Harper Row v. Nation Enterprises Introduction In the landmark case Harper Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al., the United States...
Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in Franchise Agreements: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in Franchise Agreements: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Date: May 21, 1985
Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in Franchise Agreements: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Introduction Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that...
Due Process in Probation Revocation Proceedings: Black v. Romano

Due Process in Probation Revocation Proceedings: Black v. Romano

Date: May 21, 1985
Due Process in Probation Revocation Proceedings: Black v. Romano Introduction In Black, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources, et al. v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (1985), the...
Supreme Court Affirms Intermediate Care Facilities as Institutions for Mental Diseases Under Medicaid

Supreme Court Affirms Intermediate Care Facilities as Institutions for Mental Diseases Under Medicaid

Date: May 21, 1985
Supreme Court Affirms Intermediate Care Facilities as Institutions for Mental Diseases Under Medicaid Introduction In the landmark case Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance v. Heckler, 471...
Due Process Flexibility in Prison Disciplinary Hearings: An Analysis of Ponte v. Real

Due Process Flexibility in Prison Disciplinary Hearings: An Analysis of Ponte v. Real

Date: May 21, 1985
Due Process Flexibility in Prison Disciplinary Hearings: An Analysis of Ponte v. Real Introduction The case of Ponte, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Real (471 U.S. 491,...
Tennessee v. Street AJ: Upholding the Confrontation Clause in Rebuttal Evidence

Tennessee v. Street AJ: Upholding the Confrontation Clause in Rebuttal Evidence

Date: May 14, 1985
Tennessee v. Street AJ: Upholding the Confrontation Clause in Rebuttal Evidence Introduction Tennessee v. Street AJ is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that addressed the delicate...
Clarifying the Scope of Rule 11(e) in Plea Bargaining: UNITED STATES v. BENCHIMOL

Clarifying the Scope of Rule 11(e) in Plea Bargaining: UNITED STATES v. BENCHIMOL

Date: May 14, 1985
Clarifying the Scope of Rule 11(e) in Plea Bargaining: UNITED STATES v. BENCHIMOL Introduction UNITED STATES v. BENCHIMOL, 471 U.S. 453 (1985), represents a pivotal Supreme Court decision that...
Attorney General's Discretion in Deportation Proceedings: INS v. Rios-Pineda Analysis

Attorney General's Discretion in Deportation Proceedings: INS v. Rios-Pineda Analysis

Date: May 14, 1985
Attorney General's Discretion in Deportation Proceedings: INS v. Rios-Pineda Analysis Introduction Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Rios-Pineda et al., 471 U.S. 444 (1985), is a pivotal U.S....
Knowledge of Illegality Required in Food Stamp Fraud: LIPAROTA v. UNITED STATES

Knowledge of Illegality Required in Food Stamp Fraud: LIPAROTA v. UNITED STATES

Date: May 14, 1985
Knowledge of Illegality Required in Food Stamp Fraud: LIPAROTA v. UNITED STATES (471 U.S. 419) Introduction LIPAROTA v. UNITED STATES is a landmark Supreme Court case adjudicated in 1985, which...
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