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

affirmation-of-illinois-central-railroad&amp Case Commentaries

Second Department Clarifies: LLC Law § 414 Does Not Permit Majority Removal of Member-Managers in Member-Managed LLCs Absent Express Contractual Authority

Second Department Clarifies: LLC Law § 414 Does Not Permit Majority Removal of Member-Managers in Member-Managed LLCs Absent Express Contractual Authority

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Second Department Clarifies: LLC Law § 414 Does Not Permit Majority Removal of Member-Managers in Member-Managed LLCs Absent Express Contractual Authority Case: Lengyel-Fushimi v. Bellis, 2025 NY...
No Duty Shift Without Proven Refusal: Conditional Consent Preserves Strict Liability Under NYC BC § 3309.4

No Duty Shift Without Proven Refusal: Conditional Consent Preserves Strict Liability Under NYC BC § 3309.4

Date: Oct 2, 2025
No Duty Shift Without Proven Refusal: Conditional Consent Preserves Strict Liability Under NYC BC § 3309.4 Introduction In K.K. Machine Co., Inc. v. Grillo, 2025 NY Slip Op 05225 (App Div, 2d Dept...
Clear-Error, Not De Novo: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Appellate Review for Perjury-Based §3C1.1 Enhancements and Upholds Digital-Device Search Condition Under Plain Error

Clear-Error, Not De Novo: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Appellate Review for Perjury-Based §3C1.1 Enhancements and Upholds Digital-Device Search Condition Under Plain Error

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Clear-Error, Not De Novo: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Appellate Review for Perjury-Based §3C1.1 Enhancements and Upholds Digital-Device Search Condition Under Plain Error Introduction In United States v....
Post–Loper Bright in the Eleventh Circuit: Perez‑Zenteno Factors Govern “Particular Social Group”; No Unsettled‑Caselaw Exception to Exhaustion for NTA Defects

Post–Loper Bright in the Eleventh Circuit: Perez‑Zenteno Factors Govern “Particular Social Group”; No Unsettled‑Caselaw Exception to Exhaustion for NTA Defects

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Post–Loper Bright in the Eleventh Circuit: Perez‑Zenteno Factors Govern “Particular Social Group”; No Unsettled‑Caselaw Exception to Exhaustion for NTA Defects Introduction In Esperanza Francisca...
United States v. Halls: A Generic Reference to “Standard Conditions” Is Not a Valid Pronouncement of Non‑Mandatory Supervised Release Terms

United States v. Halls: A Generic Reference to “Standard Conditions” Is Not a Valid Pronouncement of Non‑Mandatory Supervised Release Terms

Date: Oct 2, 2025
United States v. Halls: A Generic Reference to “Standard Conditions” Is Not a Valid Pronouncement of Non‑Mandatory Supervised Release Terms Second Circuit, Summary Order (Oct. 1, 2025). Panel: Judges...
No-Contest Clause Reaches Trust Benefits: Second Department Affirms Forfeiture for Probate Objections and Clarifies Delivery-Over-Recording Rule for Deeds to Trusts

No-Contest Clause Reaches Trust Benefits: Second Department Affirms Forfeiture for Probate Objections and Clarifies Delivery-Over-Recording Rule for Deeds to Trusts

Date: Oct 2, 2025
No-Contest Clause Reaches Trust Benefits: Second Department Affirms Forfeiture for Probate Objections and Clarifies Delivery-Over-Recording Rule for Deeds to Trusts Introduction In Matter of Austin,...
The “Probate Gap” and URLTA in Alaska: Reasonableness of Estate Mitigation, Non‑Willful Deposit Withholding, and Full Fee Recovery for Prevailing Landlords

The “Probate Gap” and URLTA in Alaska: Reasonableness of Estate Mitigation, Non‑Willful Deposit Withholding, and Full Fee Recovery for Prevailing Landlords

Date: Oct 2, 2025
The “Probate Gap” and URLTA in Alaska: Reasonableness of Estate Mitigation, Non‑Willful Deposit Withholding, and Full Fee Recovery for Prevailing Landlords Court: Supreme Court of the State of Alaska...
New York Affirms Unilateral, No‑Cause Partner Expulsion by Managing Partner and Automatic Loss of Affiliated LLC Membership: South Shore Eye Care, LLP v. Lane

New York Affirms Unilateral, No‑Cause Partner Expulsion by Managing Partner and Automatic Loss of Affiliated LLC Membership: South Shore Eye Care, LLP v. Lane

Date: Oct 2, 2025
New York Affirms Unilateral, No‑Cause Partner Expulsion by Managing Partner and Automatic Loss of Affiliated LLC Membership: South Shore Eye Care, LLP v. Lane Introduction In South Shore Eye Care,...
UPHPA Good-Faith Negotiation Requires Consideration of RPAPL 993(9) Equities; Failure Mandates Dismissal — Commentary on Laurelton Estates, LLC v. Prince

UPHPA Good-Faith Negotiation Requires Consideration of RPAPL 993(9) Equities; Failure Mandates Dismissal — Commentary on Laurelton Estates, LLC v. Prince

Date: Oct 2, 2025
UPHPA Good-Faith Negotiation Requires Consideration of RPAPL 993(9) Equities; Failure Mandates Dismissal Comprehensive Commentary on Laurelton Estates, LLC v. Prince, 2025 NY Slip Op 05226 (2d Dep’t...
Laches and Missing Proof Bar Post‑Satisfaction Attacks on Article 52 Enforcement; Renewal Requires Strict Justification — Commentary on GTR Source, LLC v. Zomongo.TV USA, Inc.

Laches and Missing Proof Bar Post‑Satisfaction Attacks on Article 52 Enforcement; Renewal Requires Strict Justification — Commentary on GTR Source, LLC v. Zomongo.TV USA, Inc.

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Laches and Missing Proof Bar Post‑Satisfaction Attacks on Article 52 Enforcement; Renewal Requires Strict Justification Introduction This commentary examines the Appellate Division, Second...
Barron v. City of New York: Inspection and Routine Maintenance Outside Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6); “Storm in Progress” Bars § 200/Common-Law Negligence; Defense-Cost Indemnification Claim Survives

Barron v. City of New York: Inspection and Routine Maintenance Outside Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6); “Storm in Progress” Bars § 200/Common-Law Negligence; Defense-Cost Indemnification Claim Survives

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Barron v. City of New York: Inspection and Routine Maintenance Outside Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6); “Storm in Progress” Bars § 200/Common-Law Negligence; Defense-Cost Indemnification Claim...
Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies: A Pending Adoption Petition Does Not Divest Juvenile Courts of Their Continuing Jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.353 and 2151.417

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies: A Pending Adoption Petition Does Not Divest Juvenile Courts of Their Continuing Jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.353 and 2151.417

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies: A Pending Adoption Petition Does Not Divest Juvenile Courts of Their Continuing Jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.353 and 2151.417 Introduction In State ex rel. T.B. v....
No Mandamus to Force Prosecution of Private‑Citizen Affidavits under R.C. 2935.09/.10: Commentary on State ex rel. Rankin v. State, 2025-Ohio-4483

No Mandamus to Force Prosecution of Private‑Citizen Affidavits under R.C. 2935.09/.10: Commentary on State ex rel. Rankin v. State, 2025-Ohio-4483

Date: Oct 2, 2025
No Mandamus to Force Prosecution of Private‑Citizen Affidavits under R.C. 2935.09/.10 In-depth Commentary on State ex rel. Rankin v. State, 2025-Ohio-4483 (Supreme Court of Ohio) Introduction This...
Sham Affidavits, Video Overrides, and Strict Wisconsin Notice-of-Claim: Seventh Circuit’s Nonprecedential Affirmance in Alvarado v. Ithier

Sham Affidavits, Video Overrides, and Strict Wisconsin Notice-of-Claim: Seventh Circuit’s Nonprecedential Affirmance in Alvarado v. Ithier

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Sham Affidavits, Video Overrides, and Strict Wisconsin Notice-of-Claim: Seventh Circuit’s Nonprecedential Affirmance in Alvarado v. Ithier Introduction In Ramon Alvarado, Jr. v. Julio Ithier and...
Concurrent Misconduct Can Warrant Consecutive Extensions of Disbarment: Louisiana Supreme Court Endorses a “Nature-and-Number” Approach Under Chatelain, With Post-Disbarment Noncooperation Considered Separately

Concurrent Misconduct Can Warrant Consecutive Extensions of Disbarment: Louisiana Supreme Court Endorses a “Nature-and-Number” Approach Under Chatelain, With Post-Disbarment Noncooperation Considered Separately

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Concurrent Misconduct Can Warrant Consecutive Extensions of Disbarment: Louisiana Supreme Court Endorses a “Nature-and-Number” Approach Under Chatelain, With Post-Disbarment Noncooperation Considered...
Upward Variances May Rest on Pretrial-Compliance Failures Revealed After a Bostic Objection: Sixth Circuit Affirms 21% Variance in United States v. Ellington

Upward Variances May Rest on Pretrial-Compliance Failures Revealed After a Bostic Objection: Sixth Circuit Affirms 21% Variance in United States v. Ellington

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Upward Variances May Rest on Pretrial-Compliance Failures Revealed After a Bostic Objection: Sixth Circuit Affirms 21% Variance in United States v. Ellington Introduction This commentary analyzes the...
Reaffirming the Discretionary Nature of §5K1.1 and the High Bar for Withdrawing Guilty Pleas After a Proper Rule 11 Colloquy

Reaffirming the Discretionary Nature of §5K1.1 and the High Bar for Withdrawing Guilty Pleas After a Proper Rule 11 Colloquy

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Reaffirming the Discretionary Nature of §5K1.1 and the High Bar for Withdrawing Guilty Pleas After a Proper Rule 11 Colloquy Introduction In United States v. Latrel Jackson (No. 24-12863), the...
Voluntary Dismissal Is Not Automatically a Bona Fide Termination: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Early Disposition of Florida Malicious Prosecution Claims and Upholds Rule 11 Sanctions Where Affiliate Joined Post‑Filing

Voluntary Dismissal Is Not Automatically a Bona Fide Termination: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Early Disposition of Florida Malicious Prosecution Claims and Upholds Rule 11 Sanctions Where Affiliate Joined Post‑Filing

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Voluntary Dismissal Is Not Automatically a Bona Fide Termination: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Early Disposition of Florida Malicious Prosecution Claims and Upholds Rule 11 Sanctions Where Affiliate...
Bona Fide Termination Requires More Than a Voluntary Dismissal; Naming Non‑Initiators in Malicious Prosecution Can Warrant Rule 11 Sanctions

Bona Fide Termination Requires More Than a Voluntary Dismissal; Naming Non‑Initiators in Malicious Prosecution Can Warrant Rule 11 Sanctions

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Bona Fide Termination Requires More Than a Voluntary Dismissal; Naming Non‑Initiators in Malicious Prosecution Can Warrant Rule 11 Sanctions Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh...
Borelli v. Bisignano: When Treating Sources Refuse, No Further Duty to Develop; Step-Four Denial May Rest on Ability to Perform the “Previous Specific Job”; Later Favorable Decisions Don’t Compel Remand

Borelli v. Bisignano: When Treating Sources Refuse, No Further Duty to Develop; Step-Four Denial May Rest on Ability to Perform the “Previous Specific Job”; Later Favorable Decisions Don’t Compel Remand

Date: Oct 2, 2025
Borelli v. Bisignano: When Treating Sources Refuse, No Further Duty to Develop; Step-Four Denial May Rest on Ability to Perform the “Previous Specific Job”; Later Favorable Decisions Don’t Compel...
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.