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

Clarifying the Harrington Presumption in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Lloyd Rapelje v. Tyrik McClellan

Clarifying the Harrington Presumption in Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions: Insights from Lloyd Rapelje v. Tyrik McClellan

Date: Nov 19, 2013
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

Reaffirming 'Doubly Deferential' Review Standard in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims: Burt v. Titlow

Date: Nov 6, 2013
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

Qualified Immunity in Warrantless Pursuit of Misdemeanor Suspects: Stanton v. Sims

Date: Nov 5, 2013
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

Hobbs Act Extortion Requires Transferable Property: Sekhar v. United States

Date: Jun 27, 2013
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

United States v. Edith Windsor: DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional

Date: Jun 27, 2013
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

DOMA Section 3 Declared Unconstitutional: A Landmark Decision Reinforcing Equal Protection and Liberty Rights for Same-Sex Couples

Date: Jun 27, 2013
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

Standing in Federal Courts: Hollingsworth v. Perry and the Limits of Article III

Date: Jun 27, 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

Public Initiative Standing and Article III: An Analysis of Hollingsworth v. Perry

Date: Jun 27, 2013
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...
Extension of Nollan and Dolan Standards to Permit Denials and Monetary Exactions in KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Extension of Nollan and Dolan Standards to Permit Denials and Monetary Exactions in KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Date: Jun 26, 2013
Extension of Nollan and Dolan Standards to Permit Denials and Monetary Exactions in KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Introduction Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management...
Supreme Court Declares Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Declares Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

Date: Jun 26, 2013
Supreme Court Declares Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional Introduction In the landmark case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, 133 S.Ct. 2612...
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoption Cases

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoption Cases

Date: Jun 26, 2013
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Indian Child Welfare Act in Adoption Cases Introduction The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl addresses critical aspects of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978...
SCOTUS Clarifies ICWA Parental Rights Termination: Non-Custodial Indian Parents Not Protected

SCOTUS Clarifies ICWA Parental Rights Termination: Non-Custodial Indian Parents Not Protected

Date: Jun 26, 2013
SCOTUS Clarifies ICWA Parental Rights Termination: Non-Custodial Indian Parents Not Protected Introduction The landmark case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), addressed the...
Shelby County v. Holder: Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

Shelby County v. Holder: Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

Date: Jun 26, 2013
Shelby County v. Holder: Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act Introduction Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529, 2013) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision...
Ninth Circuit's Mandate Procedures Abused: Insights from Ryan v. Schad

Ninth Circuit's Mandate Procedures Abused: Insights from Ryan v. Schad

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Ninth Circuit's Mandate Procedures Abused: Insights from Ryan v. Schad Introduction In Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Edward Harold Schad, 570 U.S. 521 (2013), the...
United States v. Kebodeaux: Affirming Congressional Authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause for Sex Offender Registration

United States v. Kebodeaux: Affirming Congressional Authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause for Sex Offender Registration

Date: Jun 25, 2013
United States v. Kebodeaux: Affirming Congressional Authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause for Sex Offender Registration Introduction United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux (570 U.S. 387,...
Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims: Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013)

Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims: Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013)

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims: Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013) Introduction In the landmark case Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Karen L. Bartlett, decided by the...
Strict Scrutiny Reinforced in University Admissions: Fisher v. University of Texas

Strict Scrutiny Reinforced in University Admissions: Fisher v. University of Texas

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Strict Scrutiny Reinforced in University Admissions: Fisher v. University of Texas Introduction In the landmark case FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, the United States Supreme Court addressed...
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims in Drug Labeling

Supreme Court Upholds Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims in Drug Labeling

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Preemption of State Design-Defect Claims in Drug Labeling Introduction Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Karen L. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013), is a pivotal Supreme...
Strict Scrutiny in Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas Commentary

Strict Scrutiny in Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas Commentary

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Strict Scrutiny in Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas Commentary Introduction FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), represents a pivotal moment in the...
Reaffirming But-For Causation in Title VII Retaliation Claims: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar

Reaffirming But-For Causation in Title VII Retaliation Claims: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar

Date: Jun 25, 2013
Reaffirming But-For Causation in Title VII Retaliation Claims: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar Introduction University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Petitioner...
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