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

Clarification of Boundary Determination via Live Thalweg: LOUISIANA v. MISSISSIPPI (1984)

Clarification of Boundary Determination via Live Thalweg: LOUISIANA v. MISSISSIPPI (1984)

Date: Apr 3, 1984
Clarification of Boundary Determination via Live Thalweg: LOUISIANA v. MISSISSIPPI (1984) Introduction LOUISIANA v. MISSISSIPPI et al. (466 U.S. 96) is a landmark case adjudicated by the United...
Enforcing Subpoenas under Title VII: EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. Sets Critical Standards

Enforcing Subpoenas under Title VII: EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. Sets Critical Standards

Date: Apr 3, 1984
Enforcing Subpoenas under Title VII: EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. Sets Critical Standards Introduction Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984), is a landmark decision by...
Fourth Amendment Implications of Warrantless Field Testing in Private Searches: Insights from UNITED STATES v. JACOBSEN et al.

Fourth Amendment Implications of Warrantless Field Testing in Private Searches: Insights from UNITED STATES v. JACOBSEN et al.

Date: Apr 3, 1984
Fourth Amendment Implications of Warrantless Field Testing in Private Searches: Insights from UNITED STATES v. JACOBSEN et al. Introduction UNITED STATES v. JACOBSEN et al., 466 U.S. 109 (1984), is a...
Balancing Population Equality and Gerrymandering: Supreme Court Upholds District Court’s Forsythe Plan in Karcher v. Daggett

Balancing Population Equality and Gerrymandering: Supreme Court Upholds District Court’s Forsythe Plan in Karcher v. Daggett

Date: Mar 31, 1984
Balancing Population Equality and Gerrymandering: Supreme Court Upholds District Court’s Forsythe Plan in Karcher v. Daggett Introduction In the landmark case of Karcher v. Daggett, 466 U.S. 910...
Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Decision in Escambia County v. McMillan, Remanding for Voting Rights Act Consideration

Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Decision in Escambia County v. McMillan, Remanding for Voting Rights Act Consideration

Date: Mar 28, 1984
Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Decision in Escambia County v. McMillan, Remanding for Voting Rights Act Consideration Introduction Escambia County, Florida, et al. v. McMillan et al. (466 U.S....
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde: Upholding the Legality of Exclusive Contracts in Healthcare

Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde: Upholding the Legality of Exclusive Contracts in Healthcare

Date: Mar 28, 1984
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde: Upholding the Legality of Exclusive Contracts in Healthcare Introduction Case Title: Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 et al. v. Hyde Court:...
Interpretation of Federal Tort Claims Act §2680(c): Exclusive Exemption of Customs Detentions in KOSAK v. UNITED STATES

Interpretation of Federal Tort Claims Act §2680(c): Exclusive Exemption of Customs Detentions in KOSAK v. UNITED STATES

Date: Mar 22, 1984
Interpretation of Federal Tort Claims Act §2680(c): Exclusive Exemption of Customs Detentions in KOSAK v. UNITED STATES Introduction KOSAK v. UNITED STATES (465 U.S. 848, 1984) is a landmark decision...
Blum v. Stenson: Defining Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Upward Adjustments under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Blum v. Stenson: Defining Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Upward Adjustments under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Date: Mar 22, 1984
Blum v. Stenson: Defining Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Upward Adjustments under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Introduction Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984), is a seminal United States Supreme Court case...
Establishing Criteria for Direct Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. §1252: Heckler v. Edwards

Establishing Criteria for Direct Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. §1252: Heckler v. Edwards

Date: Mar 22, 1984
Establishing Criteria for Direct Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. §1252: Heckler v. Edwards Introduction Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Edwards (465 U.S. 870) is a landmark decision by the...
UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR YOUNG CO. et al.: Affirmation of IRS Summons Authority Under § 7602 Without Work-Product Immunity for Independent Auditors

UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR YOUNG CO. et al.: Affirmation of IRS Summons Authority Under § 7602 Without Work-Product Immunity for Independent Auditors

Date: Mar 22, 1984
UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR YOUNG CO. et al.: Affirmation of IRS Summons Authority Under § 7602 Without Work-Product Immunity for Independent Auditors Introduction The case of UNITED STATES v. ARTHUR...
Expansion of 'Concerted Activity' under Section 7 of the NLRA: The Interboro Doctrine Affirmed

Expansion of 'Concerted Activity' under Section 7 of the NLRA: The Interboro Doctrine Affirmed

Date: Mar 22, 1984
Expansion of 'Concerted Activity' under Section 7 of the NLRA: The Interboro Doctrine Affirmed Introduction The landmark Supreme Court case, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CITY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS,...
Confidentiality of Military Safety Investigations Protected Under FOIA Exemption 5

Confidentiality of Military Safety Investigations Protected Under FOIA Exemption 5

Date: Mar 21, 1984
Confidentiality of Military Safety Investigations Protected Under FOIA Exemption 5 Introduction United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp. et al., 465 U.S. 792 (1984) presents a pivotal decision by the...
Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Based on Intentional Conduct: Calder v. Jones

Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Based on Intentional Conduct: Calder v. Jones

Date: Mar 21, 1984
Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Based on Intentional Conduct: Calder v. Jones Introduction Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that...
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.: Establishing the Standard for Proving Price-Fixing Conspiracies

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.: Establishing the Standard for Proving Price-Fixing Conspiracies

Date: Mar 21, 1984
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.: Establishing the Standard for Proving Price-Fixing Conspiracies Introduction Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984), is a pivotal...
Regular Circulation in Forum State Suffices for Personal Jurisdiction in Libel Cases: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine

Regular Circulation in Forum State Suffices for Personal Jurisdiction in Libel Cases: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine

Date: Mar 21, 1984
Regular Circulation in Forum State Suffices for Personal Jurisdiction in Libel Cases: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine Introduction KEETON v. HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC., et al. is a pivotal United States...
Williams v. Florida (465 U.S. 1109): Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing

Williams v. Florida (465 U.S. 1109): Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing

Date: Mar 20, 1984
Williams v. Florida (465 U.S. 1109): Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing Introduction Williams v. Florida is a significant case that reached the Supreme Court of the United States...
Expedited Procedures in Capital Cases: A Critical Analysis of James David Autry v. Dan

Expedited Procedures in Capital Cases: A Critical Analysis of James David Autry v. Dan

Date: Mar 14, 1984
Expedited Procedures in Capital Cases: A Critical Analysis of James David Autry v. Dan Introduction The case of James David Autry v. Dan (465 U.S. 1085, 1984) presents a critical examination of the...
Balancing Religious Symbols in Public Displays: An Analysis of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Balancing Religious Symbols in Public Displays: An Analysis of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Date: Mar 6, 1984
Balancing Religious Symbols in Public Displays: An Analysis of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) Introduction Lynch v. Donnelly (465 U.S. 668, 1984) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Heckler v. Mathews: Justifiable Gender-Based Classification in Pension Offset Under Equal Protection

Heckler v. Mathews: Justifiable Gender-Based Classification in Pension Offset Under Equal Protection

Date: Mar 6, 1984
Heckler v. Mathews: Justifiable Gender-Based Classification in Pension Offset Under Equal Protection Introduction The landmark case Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Mathews et al....
Solem v. Stumes: Non-Retroactive Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA

Solem v. Stumes: Non-Retroactive Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA

Date: Mar 1, 1984
Solem v. Stumes: Non-Retroactive Application of EDWARDS v. ARIZONA Introduction Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638 (1984), is a pivotal Supreme Court case that examines the retroactive application of...
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