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

Supreme Court Upholds Rail Passenger Service Act's Reimbursement Requirements: A Comprehensive Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Rail Passenger Service Act's Reimbursement Requirements: A Comprehensive Analysis

Date: Mar 19, 1985
Supreme Court Upholds Rail Passenger Service Act's Reimbursement Requirements: A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction The decline of intercity passenger rail service in the United States during the...
Waiver of Rule 43 Rights in Criminal Trials: Analysis of UNITED STATES v. GAGNON et al.

Waiver of Rule 43 Rights in Criminal Trials: Analysis of UNITED STATES v. GAGNON et al.

Date: Mar 19, 1985
Waiver of Rule 43 Rights in Criminal Trials: Analysis of UNITED STATES v. GAGNON et al. Introduction UNITED STATES v. GAGNON et al. is a landmark 1985 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that...
Reevaluating Death-Qualified Juries: Insights from WITT v. WAINWRIGHT

Reevaluating Death-Qualified Juries: Insights from WITT v. WAINWRIGHT

Date: Mar 6, 1985
Reevaluating Death-Qualified Juries: Insights from WITT v. WAINWRIGHT Introduction Johnny Paul Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections et al (470 U.S. 1039, 1985)...
Affirming Nonresident Lawyers' Rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause: Piper v. New Hampshire

Affirming Nonresident Lawyers' Rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause: Piper v. New Hampshire

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Affirming Nonresident Lawyers' Rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause: Piper v. New Hampshire Introduction PIPER v. SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), is a landmark...
Preclusion of Nonstatutory Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Carl Ray SONGER v. WAINWRIGHT

Preclusion of Nonstatutory Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Carl Ray SONGER v. WAINWRIGHT

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Preclusion of Nonstatutory Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Carl Ray SONGER v. WAINWRIGHT Introduction Carl Ray Songer v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of...
Compelling Arbitration of Pendent State Claims: Insights from Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

Compelling Arbitration of Pendent State Claims: Insights from Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Compelling Arbitration of Pendent State Claims: Insights from Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd Introduction Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985), is a pivotal United States Supreme...
Limiting Liability for Passenger Injury Under the Warsaw Convention: Air France v. Saks

Limiting Liability for Passenger Injury Under the Warsaw Convention: Air France v. Saks

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Limiting Liability for Passenger Injury Under the Warsaw Convention: Air France v. Saks Introduction Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addresses the scope...
Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Preclusive Effect of State Court Judgments on Federal Antitrust Claims

Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Preclusive Effect of State Court Judgments on Federal Antitrust Claims

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Preclusive Effect of State Court Judgments on Federal Antitrust Claims Introduction Marrese et al. v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is...
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA: Establishing Federal Common Law Rights and Eleventh Amendment Implications

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA: Establishing Federal Common Law Rights and Eleventh Amendment Implications

Date: Mar 5, 1985
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA: Establishing Federal Common Law Rights and Eleventh Amendment Implications Introduction In the landmark case of County of Oneida, New York, v. Oneida Indian...
Suppressing Initial Unwarned Statements Does Not Affect Subsequent Valid Confessions: A Commentary on Oregon v. Elstad

Suppressing Initial Unwarned Statements Does Not Affect Subsequent Valid Confessions: A Commentary on Oregon v. Elstad

Date: Mar 5, 1985
Suppressing Initial Unwarned Statements Does Not Affect Subsequent Valid Confessions: A Commentary on Oregon v. Elstad Introduction Oregon v. Elstad (470 U.S. 298, 1985) is a landmark decision by the...
EPA's Authority to Issue FDF Variances Under the Clean Water Act Affirmed in CMA v. NRDC

EPA's Authority to Issue FDF Variances Under the Clean Water Act Affirmed in CMA v. NRDC

Date: Feb 28, 1985
EPA's Authority to Issue FDF Variances Under the Clean Water Act Affirmed in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. NRDC Introduction The case of Chemical Manufacturers Association et al. v. Natural...
Heckler v. Turner: Mandatory Tax Withholdings Considered Work Expenses in AFDC Benefit Calculations

Heckler v. Turner: Mandatory Tax Withholdings Considered Work Expenses in AFDC Benefit Calculations

Date: Feb 28, 1985
Heckler v. Turner: Mandatory Tax Withholdings Considered Work Expenses in AFDC Benefit Calculations Introduction Heckler v. Turner et al. is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case decided on February...
Preclearance Requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Insights from NAACP v. Hampton County Election Commission

Preclearance Requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Insights from NAACP v. Hampton County Election Commission

Date: Feb 28, 1985
Preclearance Requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Insights from NAACP v. Hampton County Election Commission Introduction National Association for the Advancement of Colored People...
AKE v. Oklahoma: Recognizing the Right to Court-Appointed Psychiatric Assistance for Indigent Defendants

AKE v. Oklahoma: Recognizing the Right to Court-Appointed Psychiatric Assistance for Indigent Defendants

Date: Feb 27, 1985
AKE v. Oklahoma: Recognizing the Right to Court-Appointed Psychiatric Assistance for Indigent Defendants Introduction AKE v. Oklahoma (470 U.S. 68, 1985) is a landmark decision by the United States...
Supreme Court Affirms Mississippi Sound as Historic Bay: Implications for Inland Water Ownership

Supreme Court Affirms Mississippi Sound as Historic Bay: Implications for Inland Water Ownership

Date: Feb 27, 1985
Supreme Court Affirms Mississippi Sound as Historic Bay: Implications for Inland Water Ownership Introduction The case of UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al. (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case),...
Exculpatory Evidence Disclosure in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown v. Chaney

Exculpatory Evidence Disclosure in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown v. Chaney

Date: Feb 26, 1985
Exculpatory Evidence Disclosure in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Brown v. Chaney Introduction Brown v. Chaney, 469 U.S. 1090 (1985) is a pivotal case addressing the obligations of prosecutors in...
Affirmative Action and State Employers: Insights from James Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission

Affirmative Action and State Employers: Insights from James Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission

Date: Feb 26, 1985
Affirmative Action and State Employers: Insights from James Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission Introduction James Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission (469 U.S. 1117) is a...
Due Process Protections for General Assistance Applicants: Insights from Cindy GREGORY v. TOWN OF PITTSFIELD

Due Process Protections for General Assistance Applicants: Insights from Cindy GREGORY v. TOWN OF PITTSFIELD

Date: Feb 26, 1985
Due Process Protections for General Assistance Applicants: Insights from Cindy GREGORY v. TOWN OF PITTSFIELD Introduction Cindy GREGORY v. TOWN OF PITTSFIELD, 470 U.S. 1018 (1985), represents a...
Limits on Appellate Review of Prosecutorial Misconduct: UNITED STATES v. YOUNG

Limits on Appellate Review of Prosecutorial Misconduct: UNITED STATES v. YOUNG

Date: Feb 21, 1985
Limits on Appellate Review of Prosecutorial Misconduct: UNITED STATES v. YOUNG Introduction UNITED STATES v. YOUNG (470 U.S. 1) is a landmark Supreme Court case decided on February 20, 1985. The case...
Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA to Directly Appealed Cases: SHEA v. Louisiana

Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA to Directly Appealed Cases: SHEA v. Louisiana

Date: Feb 21, 1985
Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA to Directly Appealed Cases: SHEA v. Louisiana Introduction SHEA v. LOUISIANA (470 U.S. 51) is a pivotal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses the...
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