Log In
  • US
  • 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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • 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

clarifying-state-action-doctrine:-acgme&amp Case Commentaries

“Waiver at the Immigration Judge Level Bars Re-Framing of Particular Social Groups on Appeal” ― A Commentary on Alvarez Carguachi v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)

“Waiver at the Immigration Judge Level Bars Re-Framing of Particular Social Groups on Appeal” ― A Commentary on Alvarez Carguachi v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 1, 2025
“Waiver at the Immigration Judge Level Bars Re-Framing of Particular Social Groups on Appeal” A Comprehensive Commentary on Alvarez Carguachi v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025) 1. Introduction In Alvarez...
Due-Diligence Boundaries and Materiality under Rule 33: Commentary on United States v. Hild (2d Cir. 2025)

Due-Diligence Boundaries and Materiality under Rule 33: Commentary on United States v. Hild (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Due-Diligence Boundaries and Materiality under Rule 33: Lessons from United States v. Hild (2d Cir. 2025) Introduction United States v. Hild is an appeal decided by the United States Court of Appeals...
Whitney v. Montefiore: Second Circuit Re-Affirms Limits of ADA Protection When Patient Safety and Professional Integrity Are Compromised

Whitney v. Montefiore: Second Circuit Re-Affirms Limits of ADA Protection When Patient Safety and Professional Integrity Are Compromised

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Whitney v. Montefiore: Second Circuit Re-Affirms Limits of ADA Protection When Patient Safety and Professional Integrity Are Compromised Introduction Whitney v. Montefiore Medical Center, No....
Minott v. The Washington Law Firm PLLC: Re-affirming Broad District Court Discretion over Attorney Charging Liens and Lodestar Calculations

Minott v. The Washington Law Firm PLLC: Re-affirming Broad District Court Discretion over Attorney Charging Liens and Lodestar Calculations

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Minott v. The Washington Law Firm PLLC: Re-affirming Broad District Court Discretion over Attorney Charging Liens and Lodestar Calculations Introduction In Minott v. The Washington Law Firm PLLC, the...
Contempt Beyond the Dock: Eleventh Circuit Confirms District Courts May Dismiss LHWCA Claims for Willful Non-Compliance and Declares Rule 5.1 Inapplicable to Federal Regulations

Contempt Beyond the Dock: Eleventh Circuit Confirms District Courts May Dismiss LHWCA Claims for Willful Non-Compliance and Declares Rule 5.1 Inapplicable to Federal Regulations

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Contempt Beyond the Dock: Eleventh Circuit Confirms District Courts May Dismiss LHWCA Claims for Willful Non-Compliance and Declares Rule 5.1 Inapplicable to Federal Regulations Introduction In...
Eleventh Circuit in Wright v. Commissioner: No Innocent-Spouse Relief Where Deficiency Stems from the Petitioner's Own Income & Strict “Compensable-Harm” Standard for Removal-Power Challenges

Eleventh Circuit in Wright v. Commissioner: No Innocent-Spouse Relief Where Deficiency Stems from the Petitioner's Own Income & Strict “Compensable-Harm” Standard for Removal-Power Challenges

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Eleventh Circuit in Wright v. Commissioner: No Innocent-Spouse Relief Where Deficiency Stems from the Petitioner’s Own Income & Strict “Compensable-Harm” Standard for Removal-Power Challenges 1....
Ambiguous Lien Language, Entireties Accounts, and Constructive Fraudulent Transfer: The Eleventh Circuit’s Guidance in UBS v. Esteva

Ambiguous Lien Language, Entireties Accounts, and Constructive Fraudulent Transfer: The Eleventh Circuit’s Guidance in UBS v. Esteva

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Ambiguous Lien Language, Entireties Accounts, and Constructive Fraudulent Transfer: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Summary-Judgment Standards in Bankruptcy Disputes (UBS v. Esteva) 1. Introduction The...

Plain-Error Review after Erlinger: The Eleventh Circuit Re-confirms the
Defendant’s Burden to Show Prejudice on “Different-Occasions” Findings –
A Commentary on United States v. Karzarta Piett

Plain-Error Review after Erlinger: The Eleventh Circuit Re-confirms the Defendant’s Burden to Show Prejudice on “Different-Occasions” Findings – A Commentary on United States v. Karzarta Piett

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Plain-Error Review after Erlinger: Eleventh Circuit Re-confirms the Defendant’s Burden to Show Prejudice on “Different-Occasions” Findings – Commentary on United States v. Karzarta Piett Introduction...
“Turning a Blind Eye”: United States v. White & Herndon – Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the High Bar for Franks Hearings on Omissions and Clarifies “Deliberate Ignorance” in Money-Laundering Conspiracies

“Turning a Blind Eye”: United States v. White & Herndon – Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the High Bar for Franks Hearings on Omissions and Clarifies “Deliberate Ignorance” in Money-Laundering Conspiracies

Date: Aug 1, 2025
“Turning a Blind Eye”: United States v. White & Herndon – Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the High Bar for Franks Hearings on Omissions and Clarifies “Deliberate Ignorance” in Money-Laundering Conspiracies...
United States v. White: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the “Higher Bar” for Franks-Based Omissions and Clarifies Use of Third-Party Prior Convictions to Establish Knowledge in Money-Laundering Cases

United States v. White: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the “Higher Bar” for Franks-Based Omissions and Clarifies Use of Third-Party Prior Convictions to Establish Knowledge in Money-Laundering Cases

Date: Aug 1, 2025
United States v. White: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms the “Higher Bar” for Franks-Based Omissions and Clarifies Use of Third-Party Prior Convictions to Establish Knowledge in Money-Laundering Cases...
“Dancing on Thin Ice” – The Sixth Circuit’s Clarification of Sua Sponte Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions in Pandemic-Related Litigation (Bojicic v. DeWine II, 2025)

“Dancing on Thin Ice” – The Sixth Circuit’s Clarification of Sua Sponte Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions in Pandemic-Related Litigation (Bojicic v. DeWine II, 2025)

Date: Aug 1, 2025
“Dancing on Thin Ice” – The Sixth Circuit’s Clarification of Sua Sponte Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions in Pandemic-Related Litigation (Commentary on Erica Bojicic v. Richard Michael DeWine,...
Boundary Lines Re-Drawn: Juliuson v. Johnson and the Limits of Good-Faith Claims Beyond Insurance Contracts

Boundary Lines Re-Drawn: Juliuson v. Johnson and the Limits of Good-Faith Claims Beyond Insurance Contracts

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Boundary Lines Re-Drawn: Juliuson v. Johnson and the Limits of Good-Faith Claims Beyond Insurance Contracts Introduction In Juliuson v. Johnson, 2025 ND 139, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued a...
Tamm v. Gatzke: Re-drawing the Lines – North Dakota Reins in Rule 12(c) and Re-affirms Fact-Intensive Nature of Express and Implied Easement Claims

Tamm v. Gatzke: Re-drawing the Lines – North Dakota Reins in Rule 12(c) and Re-affirms Fact-Intensive Nature of Express and Implied Easement Claims

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Tamm v. Gatzke: Re-drawing the Lines – North Dakota Reins in Rule 12(c) and Re-affirms Fact-Intensive Nature of Express and Implied Easement Claims Introduction Tamm v. Gatzke, 2025 ND 141, is the...
Clarity over Cocktails: North Dakota Supreme Court Refines the Vagueness Test for Non-Criminal Municipal Ordinances Governing Alcohol Service

Clarity over Cocktails: North Dakota Supreme Court Refines the Vagueness Test for Non-Criminal Municipal Ordinances Governing Alcohol Service

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Clarity over Cocktails: North Dakota Supreme Court Refines the Vagueness Test for Non-Criminal Municipal Ordinances Governing Alcohol Service Introduction In Liquid Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Windbreak...
“Granular Privilege Review” Mandated: Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre and the New North Dakota Specificity Standard in Discovery Orders

“Granular Privilege Review” Mandated: Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre and the New North Dakota Specificity Standard in Discovery Orders

Date: Aug 1, 2025
“Granular Privilege Review” Mandated: Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre and the New North Dakota Specificity Standard in Discovery Orders Introduction Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre, 2025 ND 142, is a...
Harrelson v. State: Refining Plain-Error Review of Improper Comments on “Equally Accessible” Witnesses

Harrelson v. State: Refining Plain-Error Review of Improper Comments on “Equally Accessible” Witnesses

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Harrelson v. State: Refining Plain-Error Review of Improper Comments on “Equally Accessible” Witnesses 1. Introduction Jonathan Harrelson, a forty-four-year-old Mississippi resident, was convicted of...
In re Phillips: Indiana Supreme Court Establishes CPA-Monitored Probation as the Default Sanction for Trust-Account Mismanagement and Unreasonable Estate Fees

In re Phillips: Indiana Supreme Court Establishes CPA-Monitored Probation as the Default Sanction for Trust-Account Mismanagement and Unreasonable Estate Fees

Date: Aug 1, 2025
In re Phillips: Indiana Supreme Court Establishes CPA-Monitored Probation as the Default Sanction for Trust-Account Mismanagement and Unreasonable Estate Fees Introduction The decision in In the...
People v. Williams (1st Dep’t 2025): Handcuffing by DHS Is a De Facto Arrest Requiring Probable Cause; “Distinctive Clothing” and Murky Video Do Not Supply Probable Cause; Unpreserved Attenuation Cannot Save the Prosecution

People v. Williams (1st Dep’t 2025): Handcuffing by DHS Is a De Facto Arrest Requiring Probable Cause; “Distinctive Clothing” and Murky Video Do Not Supply Probable Cause; Unpreserved Attenuation Cannot Save the Prosecution

Date: Aug 1, 2025
People v. Williams (1st Dep’t 2025): Handcuffing by DHS Is a De Facto Arrest Requiring Probable Cause; “Distinctive Clothing” and Murky Video Do Not Supply Probable Cause; Unpreserved Attenuation...
“Hostility Requires Objective Acts” – Roth v. Meyer and the Refined Standard for Proving Adverse Possession in North Dakota

“Hostility Requires Objective Acts” – Roth v. Meyer and the Refined Standard for Proving Adverse Possession in North Dakota

Date: Aug 1, 2025
“Hostility Requires Objective Acts” – Roth v. Meyer and the Refined Standard for Proving Adverse Possession in North Dakota Introduction Roth v. Meyer, 2025 ND 116, is the North Dakota Supreme...
Rademacher v. State – North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies the Evidentiary Burden for Post-Conviction Ineffective-Assistance Claims Involving Unobtained Expert Evaluations

Rademacher v. State – North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies the Evidentiary Burden for Post-Conviction Ineffective-Assistance Claims Involving Unobtained Expert Evaluations

Date: Aug 1, 2025
Rademacher v. State – North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies the Evidentiary Burden for Post-Conviction Ineffective-Assistance Claims Involving Unobtained Expert Evaluations Introduction Steven Charles...
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
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert