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.
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:
Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
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.
Preserving the Patentee’s Burden of Proof in Declaratory Judgment Actions: Insights from Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures Introduction Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC is a...
Finality of Court Decisions with Unresolved Contractual Attorney's Fees under 28 U.S.C. §1291 Introduction The case of Ray Haluch Gravel Company, et al. v. Central Pension Fund of the International...
Mass Action Definition under CAFA: Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corporation Introduction The case of Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General, Petitioner v. AU Optronics Corporation et al. (571...
Daimler AG v. Bauman: Clarifying Limits on General Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations Introduction Daimler AG v. Barbara Bauman et al. is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Enforceability of Contractual Limitations Periods in ERISA Plans: Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life Introduction The Supreme Court case Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. (571 U.S. 99)...
Reaffirmation of Rebuttal Evidence in Mental Status Defenses: Kansas v. Cheever Introduction Kansas v. Scott D. Cheever (571 U.S. 87, 2013) is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that...
Younger Abstention Limits Affirmed in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs Introduction In Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Elizabeth S. Jacobs et al., 571 U.S. 69 (2013), the United States Supreme...
Supreme Court Clarifies Enforcement of Forum-Selection Clauses Under §1404(a) Introduction In Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of...
Valuation Misstatement Penalty Applicability in Sham Partnerships: United States v. Gary Woods Introduction In the landmark case of United States v. Gary Woods, 571 U.S. 31 (2013), the U.S. Supreme...
Vacating Stay in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott: Upholding Judicial Standards in Abortion Legislation Introduction The case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health...
Judicial Scrutiny of Class Counsel Diversity Requirements Introduction In the landmark case Nicolas MARTIN, v. Carl BLESSING, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a contentious practice employed...
Judicial Overrides in Alabama Capital Sentencing: Insights from Woodward v. Alabama Introduction Mario Dion Woodward v. Alabama (2013) presents a critical examination of Alabama's capital sentencing...
Clarifying the Harrington Presumption in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Lloyd Rapelje v. Tyrik McClellan Introduction In the case of Lloyd Rapelje v. Tyrik McClellan, the United...
Reaffirming 'Doubly Deferential' Review Standard in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: Burt v. Titlow Introduction Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013), is a pivotal United States Supreme Court...
Qualified Immunity in Warrantless Pursuit of Misdemeanor Suspects: Stanton v. Sims Introduction Mike Stanton v. Drendolyn Sims is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addresses the scope of qualified...
Hobbs Act Extortion Requires Transferable Property: Sekhar v. United States Introduction The Supreme Court case Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States addresses the scope of the Hobbs Act in defining...
United States v. Edith Windsor: DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional Introduction In United States v. Edith Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that reshaped the landscape of...
DOMA Section 3 Declared Unconstitutional: A Landmark Decision Reinforcing Equal Protection and Liberty Rights for Same-Sex Couples Introduction United States v. Edith Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013),...
Standing in Federal Courts: Hollingsworth v. Perry and the Limits of Article III Introduction Dennis Hollingsworth et al. v. Kristin M. Perry et al. (133 S.Ct. 2652) is a landmark 2013 decision by...
Public Initiative Standing and Article III: An Analysis of Hollingsworth v. Perry Introduction Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013), represents a pivotal moment in the legal discourse...