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

Reaffirming AEDPA’s Deference to State Courts in Habeas Proceedings

Reaffirming AEDPA’s Deference to State Courts in Habeas Proceedings

Date: Jan 10, 2012
Reaffirming AEDPA’s Deference to State Courts in Habeas Proceedings Introduction Brenda Cash, Acting Warden v. Bobby Joe Maxwell, 132 S. Ct. 611 (2012), is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United...
Supreme Court Strikes Down BIA's Comparable-Grounds Rule in §212(c) Deportation Relief

Supreme Court Strikes Down BIA's Comparable-Grounds Rule in §212(c) Deportation Relief

Date: Dec 13, 2011
Supreme Court Strikes Down BIA's Comparable-Grounds Rule in §212(c) Deportation Relief Introduction In the landmark case Joel Judulang v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, the United States...
AEDPA Deference Upholds State Court's Ruling on Witness Unavailability in Hardy v. Cross

AEDPA Deference Upholds State Court's Ruling on Witness Unavailability in Hardy v. Cross

Date: Dec 13, 2011
AEDPA Deference Upholds State Court's Ruling on Witness Unavailability in Hardy v. Cross Introduction The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Marcus Hardy, Warden v. Irving L. Cross, 565 U.S....
AEDPA Deference in Confrontation Clause Decisions Upheld in Hardy v. Cross

AEDPA Deference in Confrontation Clause Decisions Upheld in Hardy v. Cross

Date: Dec 13, 2011
AEDPA Deference in Confrontation Clause Decisions Upheld in Hardy v. Cross Introduction Marcus Hardy, Warden v. Irving L. Cross, 132 S.Ct. 490 (2011), addresses a critical intersection between the...
Application of AEDPA’s 'Clearly Established Federal Law' Post-Gray: Insights from Greene v. Fisher

Application of AEDPA’s 'Clearly Established Federal Law' Post-Gray: Insights from Greene v. Fisher

Date: Nov 9, 2011
Application of AEDPA’s 'Clearly Established Federal Law' Post-Gray: Insights from Greene v. Fisher Introduction Greene v. Fisher (2011) is a pivotal United States Supreme Court decision that delves...
Clarifying 'Clearly Established Federal Law' under AEDPA: Supreme Court in Greene v. Fisher

Clarifying 'Clearly Established Federal Law' under AEDPA: Supreme Court in Greene v. Fisher

Date: Nov 9, 2011
Clarifying 'Clearly Established Federal Law' under AEDPA: Supreme Court in Greene v. Fisher Introduction Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme...
Limits on AEDPA's Standard for Habeas Corpus: Insights from Bobby v. Dixon

Limits on AEDPA's Standard for Habeas Corpus: Insights from Bobby v. Dixon

Date: Nov 8, 2011
Limits on AEDPA's Standard for Habeas Corpus: Insights from Bobby v. Dixon 1. Introduction David Bobby, Warden v. Archie Dixon is a significant case adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court on...
Evaluating Racial Factors in Future Dangerousness Assessments: Comprehensive Analysis of Buck v. Thaler

Evaluating Racial Factors in Future Dangerousness Assessments: Comprehensive Analysis of Buck v. Thaler

Date: Nov 8, 2011
Evaluating Racial Factors in Future Dangerousness Assessments: Comprehensive Analysis of Buck v. Thaler Introduction Duane Edward Buck v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,...
KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al. – Reinforcing the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements under the FAA

KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al. – Reinforcing the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements under the FAA

Date: Nov 8, 2011
KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al. – Reinforcing the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements under the FAA Introduction KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al. is a significant 2011 decision by the United...
Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc.

Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc.

Date: Nov 1, 2011
Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc. Introduction The case of Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc., et...
Clarifying the Establishment Clause: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc.

Clarifying the Establishment Clause: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc.

Date: Nov 1, 2011
Clarifying the Establishment Clause: Insights from Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc. Introduction In the case of Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists, Inc.,...
Affirming Jury Deference on Sufficiency of Evidence: Smith v. CAVAZOS, Acting Warden

Affirming Jury Deference on Sufficiency of Evidence: Smith v. CAVAZOS, Acting Warden

Date: Nov 1, 2011
Affirming Jury Deference on Sufficiency of Evidence: Smith v. CAVAZOS, Acting Warden Introduction Smith v. CAVAZOS, Acting Warden, 565 U.S. 1 (2011), is a significant United States Supreme Court case...
Schupak Group, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty: Defining ERISA Compliance Bonds Coverage

Schupak Group, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty: Defining ERISA Compliance Bonds Coverage

Date: Oct 7, 2011
Schupak Group, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty: Defining ERISA Compliance Bonds Coverage Introduction In Schupak Group, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the U.S. Supreme Court...
Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny on ERISA Plan Administrators: Insights from Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny on ERISA Plan Administrators: Insights from Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Date: Sep 27, 2011
Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny on ERISA Plan Administrators: Insights from Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Introduction Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a...
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Coverage for Retirement Income Benefits

Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Coverage for Retirement Income Benefits

Date: Sep 2, 2011
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Coverage for Retirement Income Benefits Introduction In the landmark case Boos et al. v. AT&T, Inc., BellSouth Corporation, and the BellSouth Telephone Concession Plan,...
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Plan Administrator Standards: Emphasizing Conflict of Interest Considerations

Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Plan Administrator Standards: Emphasizing Conflict of Interest Considerations

Date: Aug 2, 2011
Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Plan Administrator Standards: Emphasizing Conflict of Interest Considerations Introduction The case of E. Belinda Bauer, as Trustee of the Craig E. Bauer Insurance Trust...
Establishing Limits on Congressional Commerce Authority: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Review of the Individual Mandate in More Law Center v. Obama

Establishing Limits on Congressional Commerce Authority: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Review of the Individual Mandate in More Law Center v. Obama

Date: Jul 27, 2011
Establishing Limits on Congressional Commerce Authority: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Review of the Individual Mandate in More Law Center v. Obama Introduction More Law Center v. Obama is a landmark...
ERISA Standing and the "But For" Exception: Insights from Harper Excavating, Inc. v. Jeffrey Hansen

ERISA Standing and the "But For" Exception: Insights from Harper Excavating, Inc. v. Jeffrey Hansen

Date: Jul 9, 2011
ERISA Standing and the "But For" Exception: Insights from Harper Excavating, Inc. v. Jeffrey Hansen Introduction The case of Harper Excavating, Inc. v. Jeffrey Hansen addresses vital questions...
ERISA Jurisdiction Over Pre-ERISA Benefit Claims: Comprehensive Analysis of International Painters v. Shore

ERISA Jurisdiction Over Pre-ERISA Benefit Claims: Comprehensive Analysis of International Painters v. Shore

Date: Jul 9, 2011
ERISA Jurisdiction Over Pre-ERISA Benefit Claims: Comprehensive Analysis of International Painters v. Shore Introduction International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Plan v. David Shore...
Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas: Supreme Court Reinforces Limits on Enforcing International Consular Rights Without Congressional Action

Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas: Supreme Court Reinforces Limits on Enforcing International Consular Rights Without Congressional Action

Date: Jul 8, 2011
Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas: Supreme Court Reinforces Limits on Enforcing International Consular Rights Without Congressional Action Introduction The case of Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas, decided...
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