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

affirmation-of-district-court Case Commentaries

Independent Decisionmaker Doctrine Refined: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies § 1983 Causation When Police Issue Trespass Warnings and Make Arrests

Independent Decisionmaker Doctrine Refined: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies § 1983 Causation When Police Issue Trespass Warnings and Make Arrests

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Independent Decisionmaker Doctrine Refined: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies § 1983 Causation When Police Issue Trespass Warnings and Make Arrests Introduction In Olivia Coley-Pearson v. Emily Misty...
Any Overlap Triggers the Single-Refiling Bar: Seventh Circuit Affirms Strict Application of Illinois’s Savings Statute in Singer v. City of Chicago

Any Overlap Triggers the Single-Refiling Bar: Seventh Circuit Affirms Strict Application of Illinois’s Savings Statute in Singer v. City of Chicago

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Any Overlap Triggers the Single-Refiling Bar: Seventh Circuit Affirms Strict Application of Illinois’s Savings Statute in Singer v. City of Chicago Introduction In Brian S. Singer v. City of Chicago,...
Humphreys v. Emmons: A Blueprint for an “Extreme Juror Misconduct” Exception to the No‑Impeachment Rule and a Clarification that AEDPA Deference Does Not Govern the Federal Cause‑and‑Prejudice Inquiry

Humphreys v. Emmons: A Blueprint for an “Extreme Juror Misconduct” Exception to the No‑Impeachment Rule and a Clarification that AEDPA Deference Does Not Govern the Federal Cause‑and‑Prejudice Inquiry

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Humphreys v. Emmons: A Blueprint for an “Extreme Juror Misconduct” Exception to the No‑Impeachment Rule and a Clarification that AEDPA Deference Does Not Govern the Federal Cause‑and‑Prejudice...
Mandating Separate Judgments and Strict Rule 41(b) Enforcement: DS Corporation v. Long Feng Corporation (2025 MP 8)

Mandating Separate Judgments and Strict Rule 41(b) Enforcement: DS Corporation v. Long Feng Corporation (2025 MP 8)

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Mandating Separate Judgments and Strict Rule 41(b) Enforcement: DS Corporation v. Long Feng Corporation (2025 MP 8) Introduction In DS Corporation v. Long Feng Corporation, 2025 MP 8 (NMI Oct. 14,...
No duty to convert or supply proprietary software for cellphone extractions under Ohio’s Public Records Act: State ex rel. Castellon v. Maloney

No duty to convert or supply proprietary software for cellphone extractions under Ohio’s Public Records Act: State ex rel. Castellon v. Maloney

Date: Oct 16, 2025
No duty to convert or supply proprietary software for cellphone extractions under Ohio’s Public Records Act Commentary on State ex rel. Castellon v. Maloney, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4687 (Supreme...
Snodgrass v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.: Conclusory Affidavits Cannot Sustain Law‑Enforcement or Security Exemptions—Prison Device and Disciplinary Records Are Disclosable Absent Specific Proof

Snodgrass v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.: Conclusory Affidavits Cannot Sustain Law‑Enforcement or Security Exemptions—Prison Device and Disciplinary Records Are Disclosable Absent Specific Proof

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Snodgrass v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.: Conclusory Affidavits Cannot Sustain Law‑Enforcement or Security Exemptions—Prison Device and Disciplinary Records Are Disclosable Absent Specific Proof...
No Stalking Required: Assault-Based Orders of Protection and Deference to Trial Courts Under Montana’s Abuse-of-Discretion Review

No Stalking Required: Assault-Based Orders of Protection and Deference to Trial Courts Under Montana’s Abuse-of-Discretion Review

Date: Oct 16, 2025
No Stalking Required: Assault-Based Orders of Protection and Deference to Trial Courts Under Montana’s Abuse-of-Discretion Review Note: This is a memorandum opinion designated noncitable under...
Employment-Based Trustee Conflicts Presumed and Beneficiary Access to Partner Financials: The Montana Supreme Court’s Framework in Matter of the Potter Exemption Trust

Employment-Based Trustee Conflicts Presumed and Beneficiary Access to Partner Financials: The Montana Supreme Court’s Framework in Matter of the Potter Exemption Trust

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Employment-Based Trustee Conflicts Presumed and Beneficiary Access to Partner Financials: The Montana Supreme Court’s Framework in Matter of the Potter Exemption Trust Introduction In Matter of the...
State v. Ramirez: When “Mere Presence” and Accomplice-Caution Jury Instructions Are Properly Denied

State v. Ramirez: When “Mere Presence” and Accomplice-Caution Jury Instructions Are Properly Denied

Date: Oct 16, 2025
State v. Ramirez: When “Mere Presence” and Accomplice-Caution Jury Instructions Are Properly Denied Introduction In State v. E. Ramirez, 2025 MT 232, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the...
Single-Count Charging of Felony Theft by Common Scheme Permissible; Rowe Distinguished and Limited to Non-Cognizable “Common Scheme” Charges

Single-Count Charging of Felony Theft by Common Scheme Permissible; Rowe Distinguished and Limited to Non-Cognizable “Common Scheme” Charges

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Single-Count Charging of Felony Theft by Common Scheme Permissible; Rowe Distinguished and Limited to Non-Cognizable “Common Scheme” Charges Introduction In State v. Wolfchild, 2025 MT 234N, the...
Nonprecedential Reaffirmation: Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity and Monell’s Policy-or-Custom Requirement Bar Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest Claims

Nonprecedential Reaffirmation: Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity and Monell’s Policy-or-Custom Requirement Bar Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest Claims

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Nonprecedential Reaffirmation: Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity and Monell’s Policy-or-Custom Requirement Bar Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest Claims Introduction In Stone v. City of Livingston,...
Nonprecedential Clarifications on Civil Protective Orders: Counterman’s Criminal Mens Rea Is Inapplicable; Electronic, Sexualized Emails Can Constitute a “Course of Conduct” for Montana Stalking OOPs

Nonprecedential Clarifications on Civil Protective Orders: Counterman’s Criminal Mens Rea Is Inapplicable; Electronic, Sexualized Emails Can Constitute a “Course of Conduct” for Montana Stalking OOPs

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Nonprecedential Clarifications on Civil Protective Orders: Counterman’s Criminal Mens Rea Is Inapplicable; Electronic, Sexualized Emails Can Constitute a “Course of Conduct” for Montana Stalking OOPs...
No Precedent Set: Justice Wecht’s Dissent Urges Individualized Suspicion for Flight Plus Proximity to Marijuana Under Article I, Section 8

No Precedent Set: Justice Wecht’s Dissent Urges Individualized Suspicion for Flight Plus Proximity to Marijuana Under Article I, Section 8

Date: Oct 16, 2025
No Precedent Set: Justice Wecht’s Dissent Urges Individualized Suspicion for Flight Plus Proximity to Marijuana Under Article I, Section 8 Introduction In Commonwealth v. Coles, E., Aplt., the...
Rule 26(a) Stipulations as Sufficient Basis for Adjudication When Children Are in the Parent’s Custody

Rule 26(a) Stipulations as Sufficient Basis for Adjudication When Children Are in the Parent’s Custody

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Rule 26(a) Stipulations as Sufficient Basis for Adjudication When Children Are in the Parent’s Custody Case: In re K.M. and L.M., No. 24-679 (W. Va. Oct. 14, 2025) — Supreme Court of Appeals of West...
Relapse and Non‑Engagement After Extended Improvement Periods Satisfy “No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard Under W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑604: Commentary on In re K.M. and L.M. (W. Va. 2025)

Relapse and Non‑Engagement After Extended Improvement Periods Satisfy “No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard Under W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑604: Commentary on In re K.M. and L.M. (W. Va. 2025)

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Relapse and Non‑Engagement After Extended Improvement Periods Satisfy “No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard Under W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑604: Commentary on In re K.M. and L.M. (W. Va. 2025) Introduction In...
Representative, Not Minor Beneficiaries, Is the “Claimant Authorizing the Notice” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B)

Representative, Not Minor Beneficiaries, Is the “Claimant Authorizing the Notice” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B)

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Representative, Not Minor Beneficiaries, Is the “Claimant Authorizing the Notice” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B) Introduction In Ashley Denson ex rel. Bobbie J. Denson v. Methodist...
Plain Meaning over Liberal Construction: Tennessee Supreme Court Defines “Unexpected” in Municipal PTSD Pension Policies and Clarifies UAPA Review of Non‑Contested Civil Service Decisions

Plain Meaning over Liberal Construction: Tennessee Supreme Court Defines “Unexpected” in Municipal PTSD Pension Policies and Clarifies UAPA Review of Non‑Contested Civil Service Decisions

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Plain Meaning over Liberal Construction: “Unexpected” Means Not Anticipated Within the Normal Course of Duties; UAPA Judicial Review Applies Even When the Administrative Hearing Is Not a Contested...
People v. James: In Bench Trials, Improper 404(b) Other‑Acts Evidence Is Not Harmless When the Factfinder Relies on It to Resolve a One‑on‑One Credibility Contest

People v. James: In Bench Trials, Improper 404(b) Other‑Acts Evidence Is Not Harmless When the Factfinder Relies on It to Resolve a One‑on‑One Credibility Contest

Date: Oct 16, 2025
People v. James: In Bench Trials, Improper 404(b) Other‑Acts Evidence Is Not Harmless When the Factfinder Relies on It to Resolve a One‑on‑One Credibility Contest Court: Supreme Court of Michigan...
Relabeling Benefits as “Equity” Won’t Save a § 502(a)(3) Claim; § 105(a) Statements Need Not Include Vesting Date for Terminated Participants

Relabeling Benefits as “Equity” Won’t Save a § 502(a)(3) Claim; § 105(a) Statements Need Not Include Vesting Date for Terminated Participants

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Relabeling Benefits as “Equity” Won’t Save a § 502(a)(3) Claim; § 105(a) Statements Need Not Include Vesting Date for Terminated Participants Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third...
Adequacy of Foreign Forums After OSR v. REE: Uncertainty Over Extraterritorial Injunctions and Witness Self‑Incrimination Does Not Defeat Forum Non Conveniens

Adequacy of Foreign Forums After OSR v. REE: Uncertainty Over Extraterritorial Injunctions and Witness Self‑Incrimination Does Not Defeat Forum Non Conveniens

Date: Oct 16, 2025
Adequacy of Foreign Forums After OSR v. REE: Uncertainty Over Extraterritorial Injunctions and Witness Self‑Incrimination Does Not Defeat Forum Non Conveniens Introduction This commentary analyzes...
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