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

Jurisdictional Voidance of State Court Orders Post-Removal: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Ace

Jurisdictional Voidance of State Court Orders Post-Removal: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Ace

Date: Feb 25, 2020
Jurisdictional Voidance of State Court Orders Post-Removal: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Ace Introduction The case Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Ace, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020),...
Supreme Court's Stance on Emergency Stay Applications: Analyzing CHAD WOLF v. COOK COUNTY

Supreme Court's Stance on Emergency Stay Applications: Analyzing CHAD WOLF v. COOK COUNTY

Date: Feb 22, 2020
Supreme Court's Stance on Emergency Stay Applications: Analyzing Chad Wolf v. Cook County Introduction The case of Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois,...
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander: Defining Fiduciary Duties under ERISA in the Context of Insider Information

Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander: Defining Fiduciary Duties under ERISA in the Context of Insider Information

Date: Jan 15, 2020
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander: Defining Fiduciary Duties under ERISA in the Context of Insider Information Introduction Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, 140 S. Ct. 592...
Finality and Appealability of Stay-Relief Motions in Bankruptcy: Insights from Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC

Finality and Appealability of Stay-Relief Motions in Bankruptcy: Insights from Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC

Date: Jan 15, 2020
Finality and Appealability of Stay-Relief Motions in Bankruptcy: Insights from Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC Introduction Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582...
Application of the American Rule under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Application of the American Rule under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Date: Dec 12, 2019
Application of the American Rule under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Introduction Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (140 S. Ct. 365) is a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court...
Rotkiske v. Klemm: Supreme Court Establishes Start of FDCPA Statute of Limitations

Rotkiske v. Klemm: Supreme Court Establishes Start of FDCPA Statute of Limitations

Date: Dec 11, 2019
Rotkiske v. Klemm: Supreme Court Establishes Start of FDCPA Statute of Limitations Introduction Rotkiske v. Klemm (140 S. Ct. 355, 2019) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Freedom of Speech in Defamation Cases: Insights from National Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann

Freedom of Speech in Defamation Cases: Insights from National Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann

Date: Nov 26, 2019
Freedom of Speech in Defamation Cases: Insights from National Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann Introduction The case of National Review, Inc. v. Michael E. Mann addresses pivotal issues surrounding...
Thompson v. Hebdon: Reevaluation of Alaska's Campaign Contribution Limits under First Amendment Standards

Thompson v. Hebdon: Reevaluation of Alaska's Campaign Contribution Limits under First Amendment Standards

Date: Nov 26, 2019
Thompson v. Hebdon: Reevaluation of Alaska's Campaign Contribution Limits under First Amendment Standards Introduction Thompson v. Hebdon is a significant case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on...
Safeguarding Asylum Procedures: A Dissent in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant

Safeguarding Asylum Procedures: A Dissent in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant

Date: Sep 12, 2019
Safeguarding Asylum Procedures: A Dissent in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant Introduction The case of William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. brought...
Reevaluating Brady Obligations and Certificate of Appealability Standards: Insights from McGee v. McFadden

Reevaluating Brady Obligations and Certificate of Appealability Standards: Insights from McGee v. McFadden

Date: Jun 29, 2019
Reevaluating Brady Obligations and Certificate of Appealability Standards: Insights from McGee v. McFadden Introduction Shannon D. McGee, Sr. v. Joseph McFadden, Warden is a pivotal case that...
Warrantless Blood Alcohol Tests Permitted for Unconscious Drivers Under Exigent Circumstances

Warrantless Blood Alcohol Tests Permitted for Unconscious Drivers Under Exigent Circumstances

Date: Jun 28, 2019
Warrantless Blood Alcohol Tests Permitted for Unconscious Drivers Under Exigent Circumstances Introduction Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019), represents a significant Supreme Court...
Rucho v. Common Cause: Federal Courts Decline to Rule on Partisan Gerrymandering as a Non-Justiciable Political Question

Rucho v. Common Cause: Federal Courts Decline to Rule on Partisan Gerrymandering as a Non-Justiciable Political Question

Date: Jun 28, 2019
Rucho v. Common Cause: Federal Courts Decline to Rule on Partisan Gerrymandering as a Non-Justiciable Political Question Introduction Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), is a landmark...
Department of Commerce v. New York: Upholding Congressional Authority and Ensuring Reasoned Administrative Action in the Census

Department of Commerce v. New York: Upholding Congressional Authority and Ensuring Reasoned Administrative Action in the Census

Date: Jun 28, 2019
Department of Commerce v. New York: Upholding Congressional Authority and Ensuring Reasoned Administrative Action in the Census Introduction Department of Commerce v. New York (139 S. Ct. 2551, 2019)...
Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Supervised Release Revocations and the Right to Jury Trial: United States v. Haymond

Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Supervised Release Revocations and the Right to Jury Trial: United States v. Haymond

Date: Jun 27, 2019
Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Supervised Release Revocations and the Right to Jury Trial: United States v. Haymond Introduction United States v. Haymond (139 S. Ct. 2369, 2019) addresses the...
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas: Commerce Clause Supersedes 21st Amendment Residency Restrictions

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas: Commerce Clause Supersedes 21st Amendment Residency Restrictions

Date: Jun 27, 2019
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas: Commerce Clause Supersedes 21st Amendment Residency Restrictions Introduction In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, 139...
Kisor v. Wilkie: Refining Auer Deference in Administrative Law

Kisor v. Wilkie: Refining Auer Deference in Administrative Law

Date: Jun 27, 2019
Kisor v. Wilkie: Refining Auer Deference in Administrative Law Introduction In Kisor v. Wilkie (139 S. Ct. 2400, 2019), the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue in administrative...
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Supreme Court Reinforces Broad Interpretation of FOIA's Exemption 4

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Supreme Court Reinforces Broad Interpretation of FOIA's Exemption 4

Date: Jun 25, 2019
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Supreme Court Reinforces Broad Interpretation of FOIA's Exemption 4 Introduction In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, the United States...
Iancu v. Brunetti: Striking Down the "Immoral or Scandalous" Trademark Bar

Iancu v. Brunetti: Striking Down the "Immoral or Scandalous" Trademark Bar

Date: Jun 25, 2019
Iancu v. Brunetti: Striking Down the "Immoral or Scandalous" Trademark Bar Introduction Iancu v. Brunetti, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2019, marks a significant moment in trademark...
Limitation of Remedies: Punitive Damages Not Available in Unseaworthiness Claims – Dutra Group v. Batterton

Limitation of Remedies: Punitive Damages Not Available in Unseaworthiness Claims – Dutra Group v. Batterton

Date: Jun 25, 2019
Limitation of Remedies: Punitive Damages Not Available in Unseaworthiness Claims – Dutra Group v. Batterton 1. Introduction Dutra Group v. Batterton, 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019), is a pivotal U.S. Supreme...
United States v. Da: SCOTUS Declares 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) Unconstitutionally Vague

United States v. Da: SCOTUS Declares 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) Unconstitutionally Vague

Date: Jun 25, 2019
United States v. Da: SCOTUS Declares 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) Unconstitutionally Vague Introduction In United States v. Da, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C....
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