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

First Sale Doctrine Extended to Internationally Manufactured Copyrighted Works

First Sale Doctrine Extended to Internationally Manufactured Copyrighted Works

Date: Mar 20, 2013
First Sale Doctrine Extended to Internationally Manufactured Copyrighted Works Introduction Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai national, migrated to the United States to pursue higher education in mathematics....
Binding Nature of Precertification Stipulations in CAFA Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles

Binding Nature of Precertification Stipulations in CAFA Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles

Date: Mar 20, 2013
Binding Nature of Precertification Stipulations in CAFA Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles Introduction Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Greg Knowles is a landmark 2013...
Ste v. Levin: Gonzalez Act Abrogates FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception for Military Medical Personnel

Ste v. Levin: Gonzalez Act Abrogates FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception for Military Medical Personnel

Date: Mar 5, 2013
Ste v. Levin: Gonzalez Act Abrogates FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception for Military Medical Personnel Introduction In Ste v. Levin, 133 S.Ct. 1224 (2013), the United States Supreme Court addressed a...
Overriding FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception: The Gonzalez Act in Ste v. Levin

Overriding FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception: The Gonzalez Act in Ste v. Levin

Date: Mar 5, 2013
Overriding FTCA's Intentional Tort Exception: The Gonzalez Act in Ste v. Levin 1. Introduction In Ste v. Levin, 568 U.S. 503 (2013), the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue...
No Precertification Proof of Materiality Required for Securities-Fraud Class Actions

No Precertification Proof of Materiality Required for Securities-Fraud Class Actions

Date: Feb 28, 2013
No Precertification Proof of Materiality Required for Securities-Fraud Class Actions Introduction The Supreme Court case Amgen Inc. et al. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (133 S.Ct....
Fixed Five-Year Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalties Established

Fixed Five-Year Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalties Established

Date: Feb 28, 2013
Fixed Five-Year Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalties Established Introduction The United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Marc J. Gabelli and Bruce Alpert v. Securities...
SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement: Fixed Limitations Period Affirmed in Gabelli v. SEC

SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement: Fixed Limitations Period Affirmed in Gabelli v. SEC

Date: Feb 28, 2013
SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement: Fixed Limitations Period Affirmed in Gabelli v. SEC Introduction The Supreme Court case Marc J. Gabelli and Bruce Alpert v. Securities and Exchange Commission (133...
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans: Redefining Class Certification in Securities-Fraud Actions

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans: Redefining Class Certification in Securities-Fraud Actions

Date: Feb 28, 2013
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans: Redefining Class Certification in Securities-Fraud Actions Introduction In the landmark case of Amgen Inc. et al. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust...
Standing under Article III in Surveillance Challenges: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Standing under Article III in Surveillance Challenges: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Date: Feb 27, 2013
Standing under Article III in Surveillance Challenges: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA Introduction Clapper v. Amnesty International USA is a significant United States Supreme Court case decided...
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA: Supreme Court Sets Stricter Standards for Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA: Supreme Court Sets Stricter Standards for Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases

Date: Feb 27, 2013
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA: Supreme Court Sets Stricter Standards for Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases Introduction In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the United States...
Oli v. Marx: Rule 54(d)(1) Preserved in FDCPA Cost Awards

Oli v. Marx: Rule 54(d)(1) Preserved in FDCPA Cost Awards

Date: Feb 27, 2013
Oli v. Marx: Rule 54(d)(1) Preserved in FDCPA Cost Awards Introduction Case: Oli v. Marx, 568 U.S. 371 (2013) Court: United States Supreme Court Decided: February 26, 2013 The Supreme Court's...
Supreme Court Affirms District Courts' Discretion to Award Costs in FDCPA Cases under Rule 54(d)(1)

Supreme Court Affirms District Courts' Discretion to Award Costs in FDCPA Cases under Rule 54(d)(1)

Date: Feb 27, 2013
Supreme Court Affirms District Courts' Discretion to Award Costs in FDCPA Cases under Rule 54(d)(1) Introduction Olivea Marx v. General Revenue Corporation (133 S.Ct. 1166) is a landmark decision by...
Double Jeopardy Protections Uphold Substantive Acquittals Despite Judicial Errors: Analysis of Lamar Evans v. Michigan

Double Jeopardy Protections Uphold Substantive Acquittals Despite Judicial Errors: Analysis of Lamar Evans v. Michigan

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Double Jeopardy Protections Uphold Substantive Acquittals Despite Judicial Errors: Analysis of Lamar Evans v. Michigan Introduction Lamar Evans v. Michigan is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case...
Double Jeopardy Bars Retrial Following Trial Court's Erroneous Acquittal

Double Jeopardy Bars Retrial Following Trial Court's Erroneous Acquittal

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Double Jeopardy Bars Retrial Following Trial Court's Erroneous Acquittal Introduction In Lamar Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013), the United States Supreme Court addressed a critical issue...
Assessment of Plain Error at Appellate Review: Henderson v. United States

Assessment of Plain Error at Appellate Review: Henderson v. United States

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Assessment of Plain Error at Appellate Review: Henderson v. United States Introduction Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013), is a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that...
State Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Claims Involving Patent Law: Gunn v. Minton

State Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Claims Involving Patent Law: Gunn v. Minton

Date: Feb 21, 2013
State Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Claims Involving Patent Law: Gunn v. Minton Introduction The case of Jerry W. Gunn, et al., Petitioners v. Vernon F. Minton, decided by the...
Rosel v. Chaidez: Supreme Court Affirms Non-Retroactive Application of Padilla v. Kentucky

Rosel v. Chaidez: Supreme Court Affirms Non-Retroactive Application of Padilla v. Kentucky

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Rosel v. Chaidez: Supreme Court Affirms Non-Retroactive Application of Padilla v. Kentucky Introduction Rosel v. Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (2013), is a pivotal Supreme Court decision addressing the...
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction and State Legal Malpractice Claims: Gunn v. Minton Analysis

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction and State Legal Malpractice Claims: Gunn v. Minton Analysis

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction and State Legal Malpractice Claims: Gunn v. Minton Analysis Introduction In the landmark case of Jerry W. Gunn, et al., Petitioners v. Vernon F. Minton, the United...
Rosel v. Chaidez: Padilla Decision Not Retroactive to Final Convictions

Rosel v. Chaidez: Padilla Decision Not Retroactive to Final Convictions

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Rosel v. Chaidez: Padilla Decision Not Retroactive to Final Convictions Introduction Rosel v. Chaidez, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court, addresses the critical...
WILLIAMS v. CAVAZOS: Establishing the Rebuttable Presumption of Merit Adjudication for Unaddressed Federal Claims under AEDPA §2254(d)

WILLIAMS v. CAVAZOS: Establishing the Rebuttable Presumption of Merit Adjudication for Unaddressed Federal Claims under AEDPA §2254(d)

Date: Feb 21, 2013
WILLIAMS v. CAVAZOS: Establishing the Rebuttable Presumption of Merit Adjudication for Unaddressed Federal Claims under AEDPA §2254(d) Introduction WILLIAMS v. CAVAZOS, 133 S.Ct. 1088 (2013), is a...
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