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.
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...
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 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 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 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 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 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 Introduction United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux (570 U.S. 387,...
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 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 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 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 Introduction University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Petitioner...