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

Enforcing Credit-Bidding Rights in Bankruptcy: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

Enforcing Credit-Bidding Rights in Bankruptcy: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

Date: May 30, 2012
Enforcing Credit-Bidding Rights in Bankruptcy: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank Introduction The Supreme Court's decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S.Ct....
Supreme Court Reinforces Deferential Standard for AEDPA Habeas Corpus Reviews in Coleman v. Johnson

Supreme Court Reinforces Deferential Standard for AEDPA Habeas Corpus Reviews in Coleman v. Johnson

Date: May 30, 2012
Supreme Court Reinforces Deferential Standard for AEDPA Habeas Corpus Reviews in Coleman v. Johnson Introduction In the case of Brian Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at...
Mandatory Credit-Bidding for Secured Creditors in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cramdown Plans

Mandatory Credit-Bidding for Secured Creditors in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cramdown Plans

Date: May 30, 2012
Mandatory Credit-Bidding for Secured Creditors in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cramdown Plans Introduction In the landmark case RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, decided on May 29,...
Fee Splitting Must Be Demonstrated to Violate RESPA §2607(b): Supreme Court Establishes Clear Precedent

Fee Splitting Must Be Demonstrated to Violate RESPA §2607(b): Supreme Court Establishes Clear Precedent

Date: May 25, 2012
Fee Splitting Must Be Demonstrated to Violate RESPA §2607(b): Supreme Court Establishes Clear Precedent Introduction In the landmark case Tammy Foret FREEMAN et al. v. QUICKEN LOANS, Inc., the U.S....
Limitations on Prohibition of Earned Fees under RESPA: Freeman v. Quicken Loans

Limitations on Prohibition of Earned Fees under RESPA: Freeman v. Quicken Loans

Date: May 25, 2012
Limitations on Prohibition of Earned Fees under RESPA: Freeman v. Quicken Loans Introduction FREEMAN v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC. is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on May 24, 2012. The...
Double Jeopardy in Mistrial Cases: Insights from Blueford v. Arkansas

Double Jeopardy in Mistrial Cases: Insights from Blueford v. Arkansas

Date: May 25, 2012
Double Jeopardy in Mistrial Cases: Insights from Blueford v. Arkansas Introduction Blueford v. Arkansas (566 U.S. 599, 2012) is a landmark Supreme Court case that delves into the intricacies of the...
Interpreters vs. Translators: Defining Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Interpreters vs. Translators: Defining Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Date: May 22, 2012
Interpreters vs. Translators: Defining Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) Introduction The Supreme Court case Kouichi TANIGUCHI v. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD., dba Marianas Resort and Spa addresses...
BIA's Non-Imputation of Parental Residence in Cancellation of Removal: Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez

BIA's Non-Imputation of Parental Residence in Cancellation of Removal: Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez

Date: May 22, 2012
BIA's Non-Imputation of Parental Residence in Cancellation of Removal: Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez Introduction Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez (2012) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addresses the...
No Imputation of Parental Residence or LPR Status under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a)

No Imputation of Parental Residence or LPR Status under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a)

Date: May 22, 2012
No Imputation of Parental Residence or LPR Status under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a) Introduction The Supreme Court case Holder, Attorney General v. Martinez Gutierrez and Holder, Attorney General v. Sawyers...
State Intestacy Law Governs Survivors Benefits for Posthumously Conceived Children: Asture v. Capato

State Intestacy Law Governs Survivors Benefits for Posthumously Conceived Children: Asture v. Capato

Date: May 22, 2012
State Intestacy Law Governs Survivors Benefits for Posthumously Conceived Children: Asture v. Capato Introduction Asture v. Capato is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that...
Defining 'Child' in Posthumous Conceptions: Astrue v. Capato

Defining 'Child' in Posthumous Conceptions: Astrue v. Capato

Date: May 22, 2012
Defining 'Child' in Posthumous Conceptions: Astrue v. Capato Introduction The Supreme Court case Astrue v. Capato addresses a pivotal issue in Social Security law: the eligibility of posthumously...
Defining “Interpreter” in Cost Recovery: Supreme Court Clarifies Oral Translation Only under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Defining “Interpreter” in Cost Recovery: Supreme Court Clarifies Oral Translation Only under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Date: May 22, 2012
Defining “Interpreter” in Cost Recovery: Supreme Court Clarifies Oral Translation Only under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) Introduction In the landmark case Kouichi TANIGUCHI v. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD., the...
Dischargeability of Postpetition Federal Income Taxes in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

Dischargeability of Postpetition Federal Income Taxes in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

Date: May 15, 2012
Dischargeability of Postpetition Federal Income Taxes in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Introduction Lynwood D. Hall, et ux., Petitioners v. United States, 566 U.S. 506 (2012), is a pivotal case adjudicated...
Hall v. United States: Postpetition Federal Taxes Not Dischargeable in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

Hall v. United States: Postpetition Federal Taxes Not Dischargeable in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

Date: May 15, 2012
Hall v. United States: Postpetition Federal Taxes Not Dischargeable in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Introduction Hall v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1882 (2012), is a landmark Supreme Court decision that...
Extended Statute of Limitations for Tax Deficiency: United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC

Extended Statute of Limitations for Tax Deficiency: United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC

Date: Apr 26, 2012
Extended Statute of Limitations for Tax Deficiency: United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC Introduction The case of United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC (566 U.S. 478, 2012) addresses a...
Supreme Court Restricts Appellate Courts from Reopening Waived Statute of Limitations Defenses in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Supreme Court Restricts Appellate Courts from Reopening Waived Statute of Limitations Defenses in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Apr 25, 2012
Supreme Court Restricts Appellate Courts from Reopening Waived Statute of Limitations Defenses in Habeas Corpus Petitions Introduction In Patrick WOOD v. Ke, 566 U.S. 463 (2012), the United States...
Patrick Wood v. Ke: Limits on Appellate Courts' Discretion to Raise Forfeited Timeliness Defenses

Patrick Wood v. Ke: Limits on Appellate Courts' Discretion to Raise Forfeited Timeliness Defenses

Date: Apr 25, 2012
Patrick Wood v. Ke: Limits on Appellate Courts' Discretion to Raise Forfeited Timeliness Defenses Introduction Patrick Wood v. Ke, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012), is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United...
Supreme Court Clarifies "Individual" in Torture Victim Protection Act: Liability Limited to Natural Persons

Supreme Court Clarifies "Individual" in Torture Victim Protection Act: Liability Limited to Natural Persons

Date: Apr 19, 2012
Supreme Court Clarifies "Individual" in Torture Victim Protection Act: Liability Limited to Natural Persons Introduction In the landmark case Asid Mohamad, indi v. Dually and for the Estate of Azzam...
HYATT v. KAPPOS: Establishing Evidentiary Standards in §145 Patent Proceedings

HYATT v. KAPPOS: Establishing Evidentiary Standards in §145 Patent Proceedings

Date: Apr 19, 2012
HYATT v. KAPPOS: Establishing Evidentiary Standards in §145 Patent Proceedings Introduction The United States Supreme Court's decision in HYATT v. KAPPOS, 566 U.S. 431 (2012), represents a...
Affirming Qualified Immunity for Non-Permanent Government-Hired Individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Affirming Qualified Immunity for Non-Permanent Government-Hired Individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Date: Apr 18, 2012
Affirming Qualified Immunity for Non-Permanent Government-Hired Individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Introduction In the landmark case Ste v. A. FilarSky, Petitioner, the United States Supreme Court...
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