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

Plain Error Review at Time of Appellate Consideration: Insights from Henderson v. United States

Plain Error Review at Time of Appellate Consideration: Insights from Henderson v. United States

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Plain Error Review at Time of Appellate Consideration: Insights from Henderson v. United States Introduction Henderson v. United States (133 S.Ct. 1121) is a landmark Supreme Court decision...
Presumption of Merits Adjudication in Federal Habeas Review Under AEDPA: The Tara Williams Case

Presumption of Merits Adjudication in Federal Habeas Review Under AEDPA: The Tara Williams Case

Date: Feb 21, 2013
Presumption of Merits Adjudication in Federal Habeas Review Under AEDPA: The Tara Williams Case Introduction Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden, Petitioner v. Tara Shene Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013),...
Florida v. Harris: Establishing Probable Cause Through Drug-Detection Dog Alerts

Florida v. Harris: Establishing Probable Cause Through Drug-Detection Dog Alerts

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Florida v. Harris: Establishing Probable Cause Through Drug-Detection Dog Alerts Introduction The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013), marked a significant...
Establishing Probable Cause: The Significance of Florida v. Clayton Harris

Establishing Probable Cause: The Significance of Florida v. Clayton Harris

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Establishing Probable Cause: The Significance of Florida v. Clayton Harris Introduction Florida v. Clayton Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), is a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefines the...
State-Action Immunity Requires Clear Articulation: Supreme Court in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

State-Action Immunity Requires Clear Articulation: Supreme Court in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

Date: Feb 20, 2013
State-Action Immunity Requires Clear Articulation: Supreme Court in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. Introduction In Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., the United...
Chafin v. Chafin: Supreme Court Clarifies Mootness in Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases

Chafin v. Chafin: Supreme Court Clarifies Mootness in Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Chafin v. Chafin: Supreme Court Clarifies Mootness in Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases Introduction Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S.Ct. 1017 (2013), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Limiting Summers Exception to Immediate Vicinity: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States (2013)

Limiting Summers Exception to Immediate Vicinity: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States (2013)

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Limiting Summers Exception to Immediate Vicinity: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States (2013) Introduction In the landmark case of Chunon L. Bailey, aka Polo, Petitioner v. United States, the United...
Chafin v. Chafin: Upholding Appellate Review Post-International Child Abduction Return

Chafin v. Chafin: Upholding Appellate Review Post-International Child Abduction Return

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Chafin v. Chafin: Upholding Appellate Review Post-International Child Abduction Return Introduction The United States Supreme Court's decision in Jeffrey Lee Chafin v. Lynne Hales Chafin, 568 U.S....
Limiting Detention Incident to Search Warrants: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States

Limiting Detention Incident to Search Warrants: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Limiting Detention Incident to Search Warrants: Chunon L. Bailey v. United States Introduction Chunon L. Bailey, aka Polo, Petitioner v. United States (568 U.S. 186) is a significant U.S. Supreme...
Clear Articulation Standard for State-Action Immunity in Antitrust Law: Insights from FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

Clear Articulation Standard for State-Action Immunity in Antitrust Law: Insights from FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

Date: Feb 20, 2013
Clear Articulation Standard for State-Action Immunity in Antitrust Law: Insights from FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. Introduction FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. is a landmark case...
Extension of Administrative Appeal Deadlines under Medicare: Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center

Extension of Administrative Appeal Deadlines under Medicare: Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center

Date: Jan 23, 2013
Extension of Administrative Appeal Deadlines under Medicare: Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center Introduction Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Auburn Regional...
Non-Jurisdictional Time Limits in Medicare Appeals: Insights from Sebelius v. CESE

Non-Jurisdictional Time Limits in Medicare Appeals: Insights from Sebelius v. CESE

Date: Jan 23, 2013
Non-Jurisdictional Time Limits in Medicare Appeals: Insights from Sebelius v. CESE Introduction In the landmark case of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. CESE, the United...
Supreme Court Clarifies "Vessel" Definition: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

Supreme Court Clarifies "Vessel" Definition: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

Date: Jan 16, 2013
Supreme Court Clarifies "Vessel" Definition: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach Introduction In Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), the United States Supreme Court...
Clarifying Vessel Status: Supreme Court Establishes Practical Use Standard in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

Clarifying Vessel Status: Supreme Court Establishes Practical Use Standard in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

Date: Jan 16, 2013
Clarifying Vessel Status: Supreme Court Establishes Practical Use Standard in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach Introduction The landmark case of Fane Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach, Florida,...
Burden of Proof in Withdrawal Defense for Conspiracy Charges: Cal v. Smith

Burden of Proof in Withdrawal Defense for Conspiracy Charges: Cal v. Smith

Date: Jan 10, 2013
Burden of Proof in Withdrawal Defense for Conspiracy Charges: Cal v. Smith 1. Introduction In Calvin Smith v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue concerning the burden of proof...
Defendant's Burden in Withdrawal Defense Upholding Due Process: Cal v. Smith

Defendant's Burden in Withdrawal Defense Upholding Due Process: Cal v. Smith

Date: Jan 10, 2013
Defendant's Burden in Withdrawal Defense Upholding Due Process: Cal v. Smith Introduction Cal v. Smith is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addresses the allocation of the...
Voluntary Cessation and Mootness in Trademark Enforcement: Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Voluntary Cessation and Mootness in Trademark Enforcement: Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Date: Jan 10, 2013
Voluntary Cessation and Mootness in Trademark Enforcement: Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. Introduction Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc. is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court...
Covenant Not to Sue and Mootness in Trademark Litigation: Analysis of Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Covenant Not to Sue and Mootness in Trademark Litigation: Analysis of Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

Date: Jan 10, 2013
Covenant Not to Sue and Mootness in Trademark Litigation: Analysis of Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. Introduction In the landmark case Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 721 (2013), the...
Flow Within Waterways Not a "Discharge" Under CWA: SCOTUS Rules in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC

Flow Within Waterways Not a "Discharge" Under CWA: SCOTUS Rules in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC

Date: Jan 9, 2013
Flow Within Waterways Not a "Discharge" Under CWA: SCOTUS Rules in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC Introduction The case of Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural...
Supreme Court Reaffirms No Statutory Right to Competence under 18 U.S.C. §§3599 and 4241 in Federal Habeas Proceedings

Supreme Court Reaffirms No Statutory Right to Competence under 18 U.S.C. §§3599 and 4241 in Federal Habeas Proceedings

Date: Jan 9, 2013
Supreme Court Reaffirms No Statutory Right to Competence under 18 U.S.C. §§3599 and 4241 in Federal Habeas Proceedings Introduction The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ryan v. Gonzales & Terry...
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