Log In
  • India
  • US
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)
  • Commentaries
    United Kingdom
    England and Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland
    Ireland
Log In Sign Up UK Judgments
  • India
  • US

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

Extending the Mobile-Sierra Presumption to All Rate Challenges: An Analysis of NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission

Extending the Mobile-Sierra Presumption to All Rate Challenges: An Analysis of NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission

Date: Jan 14, 2010
Extending the Mobile-Sierra Presumption to All Rate Challenges An Analysis of NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission Introduction The United States Supreme Court case NRG Power...
Supreme Court Enforces Procedural Protocols in Broadcasting Trials: Stay in Hollingsworth v. Perry

Supreme Court Enforces Procedural Protocols in Broadcasting Trials: Stay in Hollingsworth v. Perry

Date: Jan 14, 2010
Supreme Court Enforces Procedural Protocols in Broadcasting Trials: Stay in Hollingsworth v. Perry Introduction Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. v. Kristin M. Perry, et al., 558 U.S. 183 (2010), presents...
Supreme Court Upholds Jury Instructions in Death Sentencing, Distinguishing MILLS v. MARYLAND

Supreme Court Upholds Jury Instructions in Death Sentencing, Distinguishing MILLS v. MARYLAND

Date: Jan 13, 2010
Supreme Court Upholds Jury Instructions in Death Sentencing, Distinguishing MILLS v. MARYLAND Introduction In the landmark case of Keith Smith, Warden v. Frank G. Spisak, Jr. (558 U.S. 139, 2010),...
Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Jackson Standard in Habeas Corpus Petitions Concerning DNA Evidence Reliability

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Jackson Standard in Habeas Corpus Petitions Concerning DNA Evidence Reliability

Date: Jan 12, 2010
Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Jackson Standard in Habeas Corpus Petitions Concerning DNA Evidence Reliability Introduction In the landmark case of E.K. McDaniel, Warden, et al. v. Troy Brown...
Reaffirming Deference to Trial Courts in Assessing DNA Evidence under the Jackson Standard

Reaffirming Deference to Trial Courts in Assessing DNA Evidence under the Jackson Standard

Date: Jan 12, 2010
Reaffirming Deference to Trial Courts in Assessing DNA Evidence under the Jackson Standard Introduction In E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, et al., Petitioners, v. Troy BROWN, 558 U.S. 120 (2010), the United...
Collateral Order Doctrine and Attorney-Client Privilege: Insights from Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter

Collateral Order Doctrine and Attorney-Client Privilege: Insights from Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter

Date: Dec 9, 2009
Collateral Order Doctrine and Attorney-Client Privilege: Insights from Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter Introduction In Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009),...
Jurisdictional Clarity under the Railway Labor Act: Insights from Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (2009)

Jurisdictional Clarity under the Railway Labor Act: Insights from Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (2009)

Date: Dec 9, 2009
Jurisdictional Clarity under the Railway Labor Act: Insights from Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (2009) Introduction In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of...
Determining Mootness in Property Seizure Cases: Insights from ALVAREZ v. SMITH Et Al.

Determining Mootness in Property Seizure Cases: Insights from ALVAREZ v. SMITH Et Al.

Date: Dec 9, 2009
Determining Mootness in Property Seizure Cases: Insights from ALVAREZ v. SMITH Et Al. Introduction In ALVAREZ, COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY v. SMITH ET AL. (558 U.S. 87), decided on December 8, 2009,...
Discretionary Procedural Rules as Adequate State Grounds in Federal Habeas Review: An Analysis of Beard v. Kindler

Discretionary Procedural Rules as Adequate State Grounds in Federal Habeas Review: An Analysis of Beard v. Kindler

Date: Dec 9, 2009
Discretionary Procedural Rules as Adequate State Grounds in Federal Habeas Review: An Analysis of Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009) Introduction Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009), is a...
Adequacy of Discretionary State Procedural Rules under the Adequate State Ground Doctrine: Kindler v. Beard

Adequacy of Discretionary State Procedural Rules under the Adequate State Ground Doctrine: Kindler v. Beard

Date: Dec 9, 2009
Adequacy of Discretionary State Procedural Rules under the Adequate State Ground Doctrine: Kindler v. Beard Introduction Kindler v. Beard, 130 S.Ct. 612 (2009), addressed a pivotal question in...
Emergency Aid Exception Reinforced in Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher

Emergency Aid Exception Reinforced in Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher

Date: Dec 8, 2009
Emergency Aid Exception Reinforced in Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher Introduction Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher (558 U.S. 45, 2009) represents a pivotal Supreme Court decision that clarifies and reinforces...
Supreme Court Upholds Procedural Barriers to Eighth Amendment 'Intolerable Delay' Claims in Death Penalty Cases

Supreme Court Upholds Procedural Barriers to Eighth Amendment 'Intolerable Delay' Claims in Death Penalty Cases

Date: Dec 3, 2009
Supreme Court Upholds Procedural Barriers to Eighth Amendment 'Intolerable Delay' Claims in Death Penalty Cases Introduction In the landmark case of Cecil C. Johnson, Petitioner, v. Phil Bredesen,...
Enhancing the Standard for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing: Porter v. McCollum

Enhancing the Standard for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing: Porter v. McCollum

Date: Dec 1, 2009
Enhancing the Standard for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing: Porter v. McCollum Introduction Porter v. McCollum (558 U.S. 30, 2009) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addresses...
Enhancing the Strickland Standard: Porter v. McCollum on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing

Enhancing the Strickland Standard: Porter v. McCollum on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing

Date: Dec 1, 2009
Enhancing the Strickland Standard: Porter v. McCollum on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Sentencing Introduction George Porter, Jr. v. Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida, et al., 130...
Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Wong v. Belmontes

Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Wong v. Belmontes

Date: Nov 17, 2009
Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Insights from Wong v. Belmontes Introduction Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (2009), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that delves into...
Refining Strickland: Supreme Court's Clarification on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing

Refining Strickland: Supreme Court's Clarification on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing

Date: Nov 17, 2009
Refining Strickland: Supreme Court's Clarification on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing Introduction Warden Robert Wong v. Fernando Belmontes, Jr., decided on November 16, 2009,...
Effective Assistance of Counsel Under Strickland: Van Hook Decision Analysis

Effective Assistance of Counsel Under Strickland: Van Hook Decision Analysis

Date: Nov 10, 2009
Effective Assistance of Counsel Under Strickland: Van Hook Decision Analysis Introduction Wardner David Bobby v. Robert J. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009), is a significant Supreme Court case that...
Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Bobby v. Van Hook

Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Bobby v. Van Hook

Date: Nov 10, 2009
Effective Assistance of Counsel in Capital Sentencing: Analysis of Bobby v. Van Hook Introduction David Bobby, Warden, Petitioner v. Robert J. Van Hook is a seminal case in the realm of criminal law,...
Establishing Procedural Pathways for Actual Innocence Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Establishing Procedural Pathways for Actual Innocence Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Aug 18, 2009
Establishing Procedural Pathways for Actual Innocence Claims in Habeas Corpus Petitions Introduction In re Troy Anthony Davis (130 S. Ct. 1) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the United States Supreme...
Title VII Title: Strong Basis in Evidence Standard for Disparate-Treatment Under Title VII

Title VII Title: Strong Basis in Evidence Standard for Disparate-Treatment Under Title VII

Date: Jun 30, 2009
Frank Ricci et al. v. John DeStefano et al.: Establishing a Strong Basis in Evidence Standard for Disparate-Treatment Claims under Title VII Introduction In the landmark case of Frank Ricci et al. v....
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie 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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert

We use cookies to improve your experience

You can accept all cookies or turn off analytical ones.